Airliners in 45 years ?
Discussion
TimJMS said:
Agreed. Comfort has become an expensive commodity in flight.
Noise cancelling headphones and engine manufacturers have done more for passenger comfort than aircraft manufacturers in recent decades.
Low altitude in flight (in the cabin) which makes travelling more comfortable in itself along with better food, ICE/internet connectivity and seating will all be on the radar of the better airlines.Noise cancelling headphones and engine manufacturers have done more for passenger comfort than aircraft manufacturers in recent decades.
You'll never stop those wishing to fit as many bums in seats as possible but if you're trying to attract money simply offer a better service.
The Weight saving on the 787 is another issue. It's too lightweight and the parts that have been skimped on are obvious. The tray's and cup holders tend to break. The screen does not tilt and the armrest is tiny. Comfort wise if you see a 3-3-3 layout on your 787 leave it or upgrade. 2-4-2 seems to be the preferred comfort option for 787 Economy seats. It was also what the 787 was originally designed with. the 9 seater version just crowds it too much.
J4CKO said:
Currently I think premium economy on a 787 with a pair of Bose QC 25's, plenty of booze and some decent films is about the best your average mortal can get comfort wise and not pay thousands for, that bit of extra room makes a big difference.
PE always seems such terrible value to me. What, 20-25% more floorspace over economy, no extra weight/fuel, taxes etc (some of the biggest costs), for at least double the fare? At least the london-australia route, maybe that one attracts a premium?But yeah if they can improve efficiency to the point you get a bit more elbow/leg room within the average plonkers budget that'd be nice to see. Also twin seats so couples travelling together can have a little personal space would go down well, 3 seat multiples are just so cattle wagon like.
With the advent of cheap real time communications i.e. Skype etc the need for super fast transport to take executives to important face to face meetings should reduce, hence no more Concorde or Boeing SST.
There will be less emphasis on speed and more on economy and journey comfort.
The airlines will try to make the journey a destination in itself, like with cruise ships.
So at the high end of the market, very large, slow, lighter-than-air airliners, with on-board cabins, cinemas, wifi, casinos, shows, shopping.
At the budget end, the same craft stripped of most of the extras and filled with many hundreds of passengers.
Ayahuasca said:
With the advent of cheap real time communications i.e. Skype etc the need for super fast transport to take executives to important face to face meetings should reduce, hence no more Concorde or Boeing SST.
There will be less emphasis on speed and more on economy and journey comfort.
The airlines will try to make the journey a destination in itself, like with cruise ships.
So at the high end of the market, very large, slow, lighter-than-air airliners, with on-board cabins, cinemas, wifi, casinos, shows, shopping.
At the budget end, the same craft stripped of most of the extras and filled with many hundreds of passengers.
You can already use trains for an often more interesting and less stressfull journey, but the majority of people want to get there in the shortest time possible because unless you're retired travel time eats into doing stuff time, and I can't see that changing whether it's short or long haul.
Premium Economy on Air New Zealand is sell worth the value. I guess it's such an undefined class that it varies greatly in what you can expect.
Ayahuasca said:
With the advent of cheap real time communications i.e. Skype etc the need for super fast transport to take executives to important face to face meetings should reduce, hence no more Concorde or Boeing SST.
Utter rubbish. We've had the telephone for a hundred years, webcam conversation for 15 years. These don't replace face to face, they supplement it, and industry has shown that time and time again.This is a bit dry but gives an impression of the research avenues of Nasa which drip feed the aero industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gAusOW-RU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gAusOW-RU
hairyben said:
J4CKO said:
Currently I think premium economy on a 787 with a pair of Bose QC 25's, plenty of booze and some decent films is about the best your average mortal can get comfort wise and not pay thousands for, that bit of extra room makes a big difference.
PE always seems such terrible value to me. What, 20-25% more floorspace over economy, no extra weight/fuel, taxes etc (some of the biggest costs), for at least double the fare? At least the london-australia route, maybe that one attracts a premium?But yeah if they can improve efficiency to the point you get a bit more elbow/leg room within the average plonkers budget that'd be nice to see. Also twin seats so couples travelling together can have a little personal space would go down well, 3 seat multiples are just so cattle wagon like.
Considering this...
...Was 47 years ago, I just can't see anything massively drastic changing in the next 45 years.
Interior changes & engine refinements seem to be the main area of focus - perhaps due to the nature of heavy regulation preventing crazy experimentation?
I'd love to be wrong though!
...Was 47 years ago, I just can't see anything massively drastic changing in the next 45 years.
Interior changes & engine refinements seem to be the main area of focus - perhaps due to the nature of heavy regulation preventing crazy experimentation?
I'd love to be wrong though!
ReaderScars said:
garyhun said:
Teleportation?
Well, given the speed of science and technological developments, and the fact that particles are already being teletransported (2014) then I think something like that sort of method will be relatively common for longer distances.Penguinracer said:
Air New Zealand Premium Economy is definitely worth the extra...
It does look very nice, but I just had a look at the prices (London -> New Zealand, return), £1400 economy, £2970 premium, I worked it out at about £30p/h for the comfy seats.I like some of the blended wing body designs - like the X-48 experiment.
However a while ago I saw a little about an idea from Barnes Wallis - Cascade wings. This (not very good) CGI is the only image I've been able to find. Anybody know if it's a viable idea?
enjo said:
Considering this...
...Was 47 years ago, I just can't see anything massively drastic changing in the next 45 years.
Interior changes & engine refinements seem to be the main area of focus - perhaps due to the nature of heavy regulation preventing crazy experimentation?
I'd love to be wrong though!
Going much physically bigger than the A380 will be limited due to airports, I wonder that as composite construction advances that you couldn't build a bigger (wider) but lighter/same wingsize aircraft, but with the A380 program hoping to break even and 747 production all but dead I can't see airbus/boeing aggressively pursuing more capacity on a radical new airframe too soon....Was 47 years ago, I just can't see anything massively drastic changing in the next 45 years.
Interior changes & engine refinements seem to be the main area of focus - perhaps due to the nature of heavy regulation preventing crazy experimentation?
I'd love to be wrong though!
Other than that, depends what breakthroughs come in propulsion.
telecat said:
Looking at the Aero news they will have to. The 737MAX-9 just don't have the 757's load lugging capability or flying dexterity. The 737-9 is a flying screw up. It does not accelerate well on the runway or climb well to altitude. The cockpit and Fuselage are cramped. It's an odd ball. They stopped making 757s due to orders drying up. Unfortunately now they are getting long in the tooth the only option many airlines are finding to replace them are lower hours 757's. It seems the 757's niche is cyclical. And Airbus are breaking in. Only about 250 of the 737's orders are for the 757 "replacement". Airbus's A321NEO is similarly not "quite as good" as the 757 but has the bulk of the orders. Boeing know that there are at least 1000 potential orders. However the cost means they need to build over 1200 to break even. Dropping the 757 was a mistake and it's one they don't look like correcting soon.
Not really, the 757 has not been dropped but replaced by the 737-9 just like the A321, I am not sure what you mean by not quite as good as both the 737 and 321 are narrow body single aisle like the 757, which is a truly an awful flying experience far to loud, outdated and cramped. Product consolidation and an expansion of existing product application is the way forward, with the 350 and 787 filling in for the twin aisle longer distance routes.
Niche aircraft like the 757 and to a certain extent the 340-6 are no longer required.
Trexthedinosaur said:
telecat said:
Looking at the Aero news they will have to. The 737MAX-9 just don't have the 757's load lugging capability or flying dexterity. The 737-9 is a flying screw up. It does not accelerate well on the runway or climb well to altitude. The cockpit and Fuselage are cramped. It's an odd ball. They stopped making 757s due to orders drying up. Unfortunately now they are getting long in the tooth the only option many airlines are finding to replace them are lower hours 757's. It seems the 757's niche is cyclical. And Airbus are breaking in. Only about 250 of the 737's orders are for the 757 "replacement". Airbus's A321NEO is similarly not "quite as good" as the 757 but has the bulk of the orders. Boeing know that there are at least 1000 potential orders. However the cost means they need to build over 1200 to break even. Dropping the 757 was a mistake and it's one they don't look like correcting soon.
Not really, the 757 has not been dropped but replaced by the 737-9 just like the A321, I am not sure what you mean by not quite as good as both the 737 and 321 are narrow body single aisle like the 757, which is a truly an awful flying experience far to loud, outdated and cramped. Product consolidation and an expansion of existing product application is the way forward, with the 350 and 787 filling in for the twin aisle longer distance routes.
Niche aircraft like the 757 and to a certain extent the 340-6 are no longer required.
He's explaining that the 737 lacks the performance and range of the 757 and Boeing themselves have said they're going to build a 757 replacement as the 737-9 isn't it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff