SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 02-14-19, 06:19 AM

Base model of the 777 is the version 200 for around 440 passengers. It was build - in 1994, and last plane delivered was - 2007

the 200LR was meant to dleiver - bigger range (LR=Long Range). It has around 300 passenger seats.

Version 300 was builkd already before the A380 as well, and can seat a maximum of around 550 passengers. It gets build since 2004 until the present.

The version X exists as a plan so far, the design again focusses on extending - range.

The 777 is big yes. Becasue it is the successor to the 747 and is designed to serve over the very long ranges.

The competing design to the A380 before it was started in produciton, was not the 777, but the Dremaliner. As maller, luxurious and much more cost-efficient plane.

The A380 was designed with a maximum of - 850 passengers on mind. Most planes delivered sacrifice capacity for more space and luxury inside, however. Which reduces the econiomic formula. It got its type rating not before - 2007.

Whatever I havbe random-read baout the A380 ion the past months and years, was not the tehcnology, although it is a complicated aircraft to buold, they say; but it is the need to have unrealistically high numbers opf passnegers (=no empty seats) in order to run the aircraft within range of fincially sustainable numbers. And these numbers of passengers the carriers do not get for their A380s. While the costs of maintaining and fuelling have seen severla steep rises.

The Dreamliner competed with better cost-economy and luxury. The 777 desighn idea is that of maximising its range. Airbus thought it would get even more passengers into a plane. But the reality is that plane flies too ioften with too many empty seats.

Too big to be economic anymore. I think I read the 777 is cheaper to techncially maintain as well, and less complicated. Airbus expected that passenger numbers would climb faster and steeper and thus their plane would find a market "niche". But it shows that smnaller ploanes are sufficient to serve the demand, while running much more economically. And I do not mean the fuel consumption of the engines. whioch are within the range of m odenr engines, I mean the number of tickets needed to come up for operation hours'S costs.

However, alea jacta east. Airbus gambled, and lost. they planned for a superbig dinosaur, and thats what they got. I just read in Der Spiegel that the Boeing chief in the early nineties, when learnign about the design plan of Airbus, should have commented with a quote by Patton: "If you see your enemy making mistakes, do not disturb him".

02-14-19, 06:19 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,705 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Base model of the 777 is the version 200 for around 440 passengers. It was build - in 1994, and last plane delivered was - 2007 the 200LR was meant to dleiver - bigger range (LR=Long Range). It has around 300 passenger seats. Version 300 was builkd already before the A380 as well, and can seat a maximum of around 550 passengers. It gets build since 2004 until the present. The version X exists as a plan so far, the design again focusses on extending - range. The 777 is big yes. Becasue it is the successor to the 747 and is designed to serve over the very long ranges. The competing design to the A380 before it was started in produciton, was not the 777, but the Dremaliner. As maller, luxurious and much more cost-efficient plane. The A380 was designed with a maximum of - 850 passengers on mind. Most planes delivered sacrifice capacity for more space and luxury inside, however. Which reduces the econiomic formula. It got its type rating not before - 2007. Whatever I havbe random-read baout the A380 ion the past months and years, was not the tehcnology, although it is a complicated aircraft to buold, they say; but it is the need to have unrealistically high numbers opf passnegers (=no empty seats) in order to run the aircraft within range of fincially sustainable numbers. And these numbers of passengers the carriers do not get for their A380s. While the costs of maintaining and fuelling have seen severla steep rises. The Dreamliner competed with better cost-economy and luxury. The 777 desighn idea is that of maximising its range. Airbus thought it would get even more passengers into a plane. But the reality is that plane flies too ioften with too many empty seats. Too big to be economic anymore. I think I read the 777 is cheaper to techncially maintain as well, and less complicated. Airbus expected that passenger numbers would climb faster and steeper and thus their plane would find a market "niche". But it shows that smnaller ploanes are sufficient to serve the demand, while running much more economically. And I do not mean the fuel consumption of the engines. whioch are within the range of m odenr engines, I mean the number of tickets needed to come up for operation hours'S costs. However, alea jacta east. Airbus gambled, and lost. they planned for a superbig dinosaur, and thats what they got. I just read in Der Spiegel that the Boeing chief in the early nineties, when learnign about the design plan of Airbus, should have commented with a quote by Patton: "If you see your enemy making mistakes, do not disturb him". __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.