If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Airbus and the Dreamliner
The only certainty is that no one really knows how this will play out.
Anyone who claims otherwise is merely guessing. Meanwhile, this is an interesting read: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...ts.april04.pdf Two points I found interesting: - Even the Airbus view of future market conditions agrees that there's a large market for a plane like the 7E7. - It probably won't be as easy to incorporate unique features of the 7E7 into the A330-200 airframe as Airbus claims. I think there's certainly a long-term market for the A380, but quite limited and only a fraction of the size of the future market awaiting high-efficiency planes that carry 200-300 pax. I also think that both companies are missing out on the other end of the spectrum. Embraer and Bombardier are both hungry, and their planes are getting larger. This is a market segment that is growing rapidly, so why can't Boeing and Airbus create competitive products to fill this niche? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
As an intern architect, I know what schematic design renderings look
like. And I can say straight up that the renderings that Boeing has released of 7E7 Dreamliner are schematic. The seats look like they're floating. The materials are undeveloped. The windows are going to be redesigned. Big things are going to change as they research what they can afford, what the law will allow, and how best to design the project. This is to be expected - the plane is scheduled to enter service in 2008; not late 2004. But I have a question for anyone in the air travel industry. Who is ultimately responsible for designing airliner interiors? Is it the companies that build the aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, et-al)? Do the airlines have design departments that do it? Is it third-party "aircraft interiors firms" or somesuch? In short, who would a passenger like myself blame for the lousy legroom in coach? :-) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
In article ,
Adam Weiss wrote: But I have a question for anyone in the air travel industry. Who is ultimately responsible for designing airliner interiors? Is it the companies that build the aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, et-al)? Do the airlines have design departments that do it? Is it third-party "aircraft interiors firms" or somesuch? In short, who would a passenger like myself blame for the lousy legroom in coach? :-) I think the a/c is pretty much an empty shell. The mfg. will spec the walls, maybe te toilets, roof, over head compartments (witness those designed for the 777 which have found their ways into recently-manufactured models of older Boeing a/c). Seats, galleys, lavs are up to the airline. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Airbus and the Dreamliner
What is rather interesting is the issue concerning
1 the very low development funding in Boeing 2 the amount of government funding envisioned from Japan! 3 if Boeing is going to concentrate its limited RD resources on the 7E7 the next four to five years they will not be able to do much about their other models which are all - compared to Airbus' (except the 777) - rather old designs. That means that it'll be only about 2012 at the earliest a new single aisle airliner from Boeing (except the 717 - and it doesn't really matter anyway) will be able to be introduced! The 747 will also at that time be rather "vintage" leaving the entire super sized market to the A380. After 2006/7 Airbus will be able to build a replacement for the A300 or a brand new A320 that will still be in the market well before Boeing will be able to come up with anything new to match. Interesting situation indeed for Airbus. Perhaps they really might be crying all the way to the bank because of Boeing's decision to replace what in fact is one their newer designs! Nik "Quantum Foam Guy" wrote in message ... The only certainty is that no one really knows how this will play out. Anyone who claims otherwise is merely guessing. Meanwhile, this is an interesting read: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...ts.april04.pdf Two points I found interesting: - Even the Airbus view of future market conditions agrees that there's a large market for a plane like the 7E7. - It probably won't be as easy to incorporate unique features of the 7E7 into the A330-200 airframe as Airbus claims. I think there's certainly a long-term market for the A380, but quite limited and only a fraction of the size of the future market awaiting high-efficiency planes that carry 200-300 pax. I also think that both companies are missing out on the other end of the spectrum. Embraer and Bombardier are both hungry, and their planes are getting larger. This is a market segment that is growing rapidly, so why can't Boeing and Airbus create competitive products to fill this niche? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
Not the Karl Orff wrote:
I think the a/c is pretty much an empty shell. The mfg. will spec the walls, maybe te toilets, roof, over head compartments (witness those designed for the 777 which have found their ways into recently-manufactured models of older Boeing a/c). Seats, galleys, lavs are up to the airline. In the past, a Boeing aircraft was built to the specs of the purchasing airline. That is why, for instance, Canadian Airlines didn't get a 747-400, they got 747-475s. Boeing has a multitude of options during manufacturing which an airline chooses. For instance, Air Canada chooses to starve passengers of air by not paying for individual air vents, while CP asked for them to be installed. Similarly, on some plane types, CP had one more toilet than Air Canada. Air France may have had more galleys than on other airlines. The position of toilets and galleys was originally decided during the plane construction. But recently, Boeing and Airbus agreed it was necessary to try to standardize plane construction to save on costs and give airlines less flexibility (but sufficiently flexibility) in how they set out their interiors. Having said this, airlines do have control over the plastic walls (colour), carpets, and seat pitch and upholstering. But seat width is pretty well defined by the aircraft manufacturer. Seat pitch can be adjusted in increments defined by manufacturer. Options for in-flight entertainment and now internet are available from accredited vendors who have been vetted/approved/certificated by the aircraft manufacturer for that aircraft type. This was one of the big issues with the Swissair 111 crash: the vendor of the IFE system had been acredited by McD, but when it was installed, they changed the way it was connected to the plane's power systems because the approved method put the IFE system on a circuit whose breaker wasn't strong enough to handle the load. Some of the airline-customozable parts are available from 3rd parties, some are only from the manufacturer. Some from 3rd party manufacturers but orderable only from plane's manufacturer. Actual equipment in the galley is decided by the airline. (For instance, Wardair had different ovens for coach galleys that allowed steaks to be served, they also had different coffee brewers for coach which CP then distributed to its fleet's business class galleys because Wardair's coach coffee makers were better than CP's business class ones. Some airlines have refrigirators in the galley. Some use dry ice and a combination of cold outside air (works only at altitude). The trend now is to standardize galleys and toilets so that manufacturers' costs are lower due to more standard designs. Boeing and Airbus want to build planes with fixed locations for galleys/toilets and the airline can then choose which of those spots to outfit with a galley and/or toilet etc. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Airbus and the Dreamliner
Nik wrote:
2 the amount of government funding envisioned from Japan! Yep. One way for Boeing to get subsidized funding without involving the US government. I suspect that Airbus will have some most interesting negotiations with the Japanese government. If japan were to order some Airbus planes, perhaps Airbus might overlook the subsidy issue. Of course, when you consider who is paying for the plane's development, it is no surprise that it is a Japanese airline making that 50 plane order. Someone commented on how the 380's orders were "dangerous" since one customer (emirates) had such a large propotion of the current orders. Well, for the 7E7, one japanese airlines has 100% of the launch orders. Continental announced that while the 7E7 will eventually be a good fit inside its fleet, they are not contemplating buying any in the foreseable future, unless there is a dramatic turn around in the industry. On the Boeing web site, they mentioned that the all-composite fuselage wouldn't actually save weight compared to modern aluminium products. If the composite fuselage really does bring advantages, then that is great. But if the advantages are slim to non-existant, what impact will it have on airline's maintenance facilities/tooling/procedures ? http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...ts.april04.pdf I find it interesting that so many in the press point to Airbus stating there isn't a market for a 7E7 plane's size. This article even mentions Airbus having to build a totally new plane to compete against the 7E7 (but later on does mention the fact that Airbus already has the 330). For christ's sake, Airbus has had a 330 plane well before Boeing started the 7E7. Do you really think that Airbus doesn't think that the market isn't big enough to need a plane that size ? One may dispute the size of the market and what percentage each will get, but the market is certaintly big enough to accomoate 2 competing planes. So I don't understand why any reporters would point to such arguments. If a break-even point is about 250 planes, and the lowest estimate for a market is 1500 planes, than even with only 40% of market, the 7E7 would be profitable for boeing. One thing I don't quite understand. The article states that the 7E7 will be "all electric" and won't need any bleed air from engines. So, how will they warm the wings to prevent de-icing, how will they pressurize the aircraft ? Having separate compressors for cabin pressure doesn't seem like such a big weight saving idea to me. What the article really fails to mention is how the 7E7 will fit inside Boeing's product line. By replacing the 767 with the 7E7, Boeing is reducing the gap with the 777. So some sales that would have gone to the 777 will go to the 7E7. And in terms of the fragmentation theory, once you remove the marketing goobledigook, it really doesn't mean much. The "boeing fragmentation" can only happen with countries whith whom there is a very open skies agreement AND airports that are not congested. American may wish to fragment all it wants, but in the end, it has limited slots at LHR. So once all thsoe slots are used, American will have to decide between having hourly flights NYC-LHR, or reducing frequencies on NYC-LHR to free up slots to allow podunk-LHR non-stop flight. And if American has to reduce frequency on NYC-LHR, it will mean that American will have to up-gauge its planes to carry the same number of PAX on fewer flights. Also, it is in Boeing's interest to convince the airlines and the public that fragmentation is good: fragmentation will result in a greater number of planes in the sky, hence more profits for Boeing. It doesn't necessarily mean more efficient (and thus more profitable) operation for airlines. While turnaround times for domestic flights can be dramatically reduced, I am not sure that they can be reduced that much for trans-atlantic flights. If you have 15 small planes doing trans-atlantic hops with 2 hour turnarounds at each end, can this be more cost effective than 6 A380s with same total capacity ? The 15 small planes spend a combined 60 hours idle on tarmac each day. The 6 380s spend a combined 24 hours. designs. That means that it'll be only about 2012 at the earliest a new single aisle airliner from Boeing (except the 717 - and it doesn't really matter anyway) will be able to be introduced! The 747 will also at that time be rather "vintage" leaving the entire super sized market to the A380. However, by 2008, the A320 will also be 20 years old. However, because it has a "software cockpit", perhaps it is far easier to upgrade the plane without having to start from scratch. Boeing's problem is that its 737, no matter how much its wing/engines have been tweaked, still has the old fashioned cockpit and that will require recertification to transform the 737 into a modern plane. After 2006/7 Airbus will be able to build a replacement for the A300 I really don't see the need for a replacement A300. My feeling is that a variant of the A330 could do the job. or a brand new A320 that will still be in the market well before Boeing will be able to come up with anything new to match. I think that a "rebuild" of the 320 (and 330/340 for that matter) will depend greatly on the introduction of any new technology/material that will make a really big difference. If rebuilding the 320 with today's technologies would yield very small improvements over tweaking the 320, then there is no way to justify the redevelopment of a totally new 320. If, however, new technologies arise that make a significant difference, then perhaps Airbus will have to rebuilt the 320 from scratch. The problem with the 7E7 is that the "20% savings" are not very credible because we don't really know it compares to what plane. Compared to the 767 ? Or compared to the A330 ? Is the 20% just because the plane is a different size (bigger planes reduce cost per pax), or is it due to new technology ? Is that new technology just catching up to the Airbus technology (from old 767), or will it be significantly leading Airbus ? We don't know. My bet is that Airbus will wait to see how the 7E7 fares in real life before deciding whether whatever technological innovatiosn done on the 7E7 are really worth it. Right now, my impression is that the 7E7 is being marketed with a lot of fluff such as those fancy LCD windows, fancy-unrealistic interior design etc. There is no question that Boeing will be able to build a 767 replacement with significant efficiency improvements over the 767. The A380 is different because it is a plane of a size never built before. Its expected cost/pax advantage will come mostly from it being a bigger plane. So as long as Airbus can make the 380 fly with respectable range/speed/cargo, it should provide the savings. But for the 7E7, it won't have a size advantage against Airbus. So it will compete exclusively on performance/cost. Unless the new 7E7 technology really gives it an edge over the existing 330 Airbus products, Airbus will still keep a good share of the market. And until Boeing gets cockpit commonality between all its products, Airbus will retain a bit of an edge. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Airbus and the Dreamliner
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:22:22 -0500, Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
The only certainty is that no one really knows how this will play out. Anyone who claims otherwise is merely guessing. Meanwhile, this is an interesting read: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images...ts.april04.pdf Two points I found interesting: - Even the Airbus view of future market conditions agrees that there's a large market for a plane like the 7E7. - It probably won't be as easy to incorporate unique features of the 7E7 into the A330-200 airframe as Airbus claims. I think there's certainly a long-term market for the A380, but quite limited and only a fraction of the size of the future market awaiting high-efficiency planes that carry 200-300 pax. But how long and how limited? I just can't see enough of a market soon enough to support development costs. I also think that both companies are missing out on the other end of the spectrum. Embraer and Bombardier are both hungry, and their planes are getting larger. This is a market segment that is growing rapidly, so why can't Boeing and Airbus create competitive products to fill this niche? Because they can't compete in that market. Look at how quick Boeing got rid of DeHavilland. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
Adam Weiss wrote:
As an intern architect, I know what schematic design renderings look like. And I can say straight up that the renderings that Boeing has released of 7E7 Dreamliner are schematic. The seats look like they're floating. The materials are undeveloped. The windows are going to be redesigned. Big things are going to change as they research what they can afford, what the law will allow, and how best to design the project. This is to be expected - the plane is scheduled to enter service in 2008; not late 2004. But I have a question for anyone in the air travel industry. Who is ultimately responsible for designing airliner interiors? Is it the companies that build the aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, et-al)? Do the airlines have design departments that do it? Is it third-party "aircraft interiors firms" or somesuch? In short, who would a passenger like myself blame for the lousy legroom in coach? :-) the airlines fit the interior out when planes are ordered but the legroom is chosen by the carrier -- seats can be resituated e.g. note that AA added legroom without changing planes -- carriers have choices of configuration, pitch, recline, legroom etc |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
Adam Weiss wrote:
Who is ultimately responsible for designing airliner interiors? Is it the companies that build the aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, et-al)? The manufacturers are ultimately responsible for interiors on aircraft delivered as new, since they have to make sure the interiors meet regulatory requirements, and don't affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. Do the airlines have design departments that do it? Is it third-party "aircraft interiors firms" or somesuch? In short, who would a passenger like myself blame for the lousy legroom in coach? :-) Legroom would be decided by the individual airlines. There are many third party companies that provide the interior components. Everything from seats to overhead storage compartments and interior paneling and lighting. These components would be offered to prospective customers, who would then select arrangements that meet their needs. The customer would decide what types of galleys, the seats and seat spacing, interior colors, and so on from the options made available by the manufacturer. In some cases, the interiors are even installed by third party companies not related to the manufacturers. This is more the case with business jets, but it has been done by some passenger carriers. The aircraft is delivered as a shell, and the interior fitted out after delivery. The manufacturers have their own in-house design groups, but have also often called on industrial design companies started by people like Norman Bel Geddes, Henry Dreyfuss, and Raymond Loewy to develop new concepts. I suspect that one of these types of companies was involved in the conceptual design of the Dreamliner. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Who Designs Airliner Interiors?
Adam Weiss wrote:
But I have a question for anyone in the air travel industry. Who is ultimately responsible for designing airliner interiors? Is it the companies that build the aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, et-al)? Do the airlines have design departments that do it? Is it third-party "aircraft interiors firms" or somesuch? In short, who would a passenger like myself blame for the lousy legroom in coach? :-) Boeing designs the walls, windows and storage. Other companies make the seating. The airlines set the spacing, up to the limits to the aircraft. Blame the airline. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|