5 ms·

That is unfortunate. The plane was too early and too late at the same time. It was too early. With better engines that are available now and in a longer versio

That is unfortunate. The plane was too early and too late at the same time. It was too early. With better engines that are available now and in a longer version with over 1000 passengers it would have been more cost efficient and interesting for price sensitive customers in some Asian countries. It was too late since the HUB airport model is currently out of fashion.

ddalex 6y ago
The too early is easily fixed - you can upgrade the engines; the current version (-800) is also the baby version; it has the wings and tail designed for a large expansion (-1000) that would sit over 1000 passengers in economy-only class comfortable. The plan was to reach that stage. What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports where large planes can easily land (737NG or Airbus's own A321). One stroke of business genius on Airbus's part was buying the share in Bombardier - the A220 is gonna see massive usage in Europe). Airbus really played on the whole spectrum - the company is well positioned on all segments of the market. Unfortunately the market is dwindling, and this marvelous piece of engineering is dying. I only hope I'll get to fly one before it retires.
- tremon 6y ago
  What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports where large planes can easily land The way I've heard it expressed is that the commercial aviators are moving away from the hub-and-spoke model: it used to be that there were few long-haul airports in any region, and to get to the smaller airports you'd need to transfer at the hub. But nowadays it's much more common to fly directly on a regional airport, even for long-haul flights. That means the passenger number per long-haul flight gets smaller (it no longer includes the regional destinations), and the regional airports don't have the size nor the capacity to handle these large planes. The airlines flying these planes are the ones still using a hub-and-spoke model, like Emirates.
- newdude116 6y ago
  "The too early is easily fixed" You can not just stick some new engines to a plane and elongate the body. This needs more investments and certification. Less costly than a new plane but still costs. "What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports " It is hard to predict the future. Just as an example: Many small EU airports may close due to new EU regulation and limited subsidiaries. Many of the small airports create heavy losses that are financed by taxes. This may come to an end. Also, Europe is thinking to revive the TEE trains (Trans Europe Express). The bottom line: things can change.
  - G4E 6y ago
    >You can not just stick some new engines to a plane and elongate the body. This needs more investments and certification. Less costly than a new plane but still costs. Isn't what Boeing basically did with their 737-Max ? With no new certification ?
    - newdude116 6y ago
      I am not an airplane engineer. Part of the certification is that you can do this. Elongating the body would be a different thing again. My "new certification" was in regarding to the Federal Aviation Administration. You are referring to pilots certification. Yes, after the FAA gives green light, the plane is certified. And a pilot may or may not, based in his types of licenses fly the plane or require new training. In case of 737-Max new training was not deemed necessary. :-(
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Isn't ICE (Inter City Express) basically the descendant of TEE ? I wonder what revived TEE would bring on top of that, possibly other than retro nostalgia. Also often trains are limitted by inadequate or missing high speed rail infrastructure.
bb123 6y ago
It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 have been disasters commercially. It seems like we will be stuck with the current widebody, single deck, subsonic planes for most of our lifetimes with little real advancement in comfort or speed.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  we will be stuck with the current widebody, single deck, subsonic planes for most of our lifetimes with little real advancement in comfort or speed. Which, by what is surely pure coincidence, suits Boeing perfectly. After all American regulators would never favour a domestic company.
- paul_f 6y ago
  The hub and spoke model was not new when the 380 launched. Engine and airframe manufacturers innovated and are now replacing the hub and spoke model with long haul point-to-point aircraft and routes. Sounds to me like a great innovation that will be rewarded.

ddalex 6y ago

The too early is easily fixed - you can upgrade the engines; the current version (-800) is also the baby version; it has the wings and tail designed for a large expansion (-1000) that would sit over 1000 passengers in economy-only class comfortable. The plan was to reach that stage. What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports where large planes can easily land (737NG or Airbus's own A321). One stroke of business genius on Airbus's part was buying the share in Bombardier - the A220 is gonna see massive usage in Europe). Airbus really played on the whole spectrum - the company is well positioned on all segments of the market. Unfortunately the market is dwindling, and this marvelous piece of engineering is dying. I only hope I'll get to fly one before it retires.

tremon 6y ago
What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports where large planes can easily land The way I've heard it expressed is that the commercial aviators are moving away from the hub-and-spoke model: it used to be that there were few long-haul airports in any region, and to get to the smaller airports you'd need to transfer at the hub. But nowadays it's much more common to fly directly on a regional airport, even for long-haul flights. That means the passenger number per long-haul flight gets smaller (it no longer includes the regional destinations), and the regional airports don't have the size nor the capacity to handle these large planes. The airlines flying these planes are the ones still using a hub-and-spoke model, like Emirates.
newdude116 6y ago
"The too early is easily fixed" You can not just stick some new engines to a plane and elongate the body. This needs more investments and certification. Less costly than a new plane but still costs. "What really doomed it was the proliferation of small airports " It is hard to predict the future. Just as an example: Many small EU airports may close due to new EU regulation and limited subsidiaries. Many of the small airports create heavy losses that are financed by taxes. This may come to an end. Also, Europe is thinking to revive the TEE trains (Trans Europe Express). The bottom line: things can change.
- G4E 6y ago
  >You can not just stick some new engines to a plane and elongate the body. This needs more investments and certification. Less costly than a new plane but still costs. Isn't what Boeing basically did with their 737-Max ? With no new certification ?
  - newdude116 6y ago
    I am not an airplane engineer. Part of the certification is that you can do this. Elongating the body would be a different thing again. My "new certification" was in regarding to the Federal Aviation Administration. You are referring to pilots certification. Yes, after the FAA gives green light, the plane is certified. And a pilot may or may not, based in his types of licenses fly the plane or require new training. In case of 737-Max new training was not deemed necessary. :-(
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Isn't ICE (Inter City Express) basically the descendant of TEE ? I wonder what revived TEE would bring on top of that, possibly other than retro nostalgia. Also often trains are limitted by inadequate or missing high speed rail infrastructure.

bb123 6y ago

It is sad to me that the aviation industry doesn't appear to be able reward the manufacturers that take risks with their designs. Both Concorde and the A380 have been disasters commercially. It seems like we will be stuck with the current widebody, single deck, subsonic planes for most of our lifetimes with little real advancement in comfort or speed.

goatinaboat 6y ago
we will be stuck with the current widebody, single deck, subsonic planes for most of our lifetimes with little real advancement in comfort or speed. Which, by what is surely pure coincidence, suits Boeing perfectly. After all American regulators would never favour a domestic company.
paul_f 6y ago
The hub and spoke model was not new when the 380 launched. Engine and airframe manufacturers innovated and are now replacing the hub and spoke model with long haul point-to-point aircraft and routes. Sounds to me like a great innovation that will be rewarded.