To: The Magical Mischief Tour
I am certainly no expert, but I am thinking that this is exactly the wrong design at the wrong time. From what I can tell the future belongs to smaller jets landing at smaller airports working on some sort of point-to-point strategy, and this future will place more emphasis on smaller and even civil airports and less on commercial airports. So this new Airbus strikes me as a purposeful move in the wrong direction, and I predict it will be only a modest success at best.
However, I freely admit that I could be totally wrong. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.
6 posted on
02/23/2003 9:16:37 PM PST by
Billy_bob_bob
("He who will not reason is a bigot;He who cannot is a fool;He who dares not is a slave." W. Drummond)
To: Billy_bob_bob
My guess is that you are off-base. I fly over 100,000 miles per year, mostly on 747-400s that are packed to the max, especially in Asia. Those planes carry 400+ persons, so this plane is not really that much larger. It supposedly will have a lower cost per seat. But I think that Boeing is working on a stretch 747 that can compete. These planes definitely can make money on the long-haul trans-pacific routes.
To: Billy_bob_bob
sounds like a government jobs project.
To: Billy_bob_bob; Poohbah
Perhaps, but something like this would be a great asset for strategic airlift. 555 passengers - that's a battalion of troops.
24 posted on
02/24/2003 6:03:24 AM PST by
hchutch
("Last suckers crossed, Syndicate shot'em up" - Ice-T, "I'm Your Pusher")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson