Airliners in 45 years ?

Author
Discussion

HoHoHo

14,980 posts

249 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
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.

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.

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
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

Original Poster:

41,287 posts

199 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
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.

hairyben

8,516 posts

182 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
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.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all


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.

hairyben

8,516 posts

182 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
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.
Cant see speed ever being sacrificed unless the economy benefits were huge.

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.

Evanivitch

19,803 posts

121 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
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.

Catatafish

1,361 posts

144 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
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

J4CKO

Original Poster:

41,287 posts

199 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
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.
Usually not that big of a price difference, work will pay for that but not business, makes it tolerable.

Penguinracer

1,593 posts

205 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
Air New Zealand Premium Economy is definitely worth the extra...

enjo

339 posts

137 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
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!

menguin

3,762 posts

220 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
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.
The one minor problem with teleportation is the idea (fact?) that you are not teleporting something but rather you are destroying it in one location and creating it in another - is that still the case? It was the last time I read up about it. I'd be interested to know if they are actually able to move the same physical particle - and how that is verified.

maffski

1,866 posts

158 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
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?




hairyben

8,516 posts

182 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
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.

Other than that, depends what breakthroughs come in propulsion.

Evanivitch

19,803 posts

121 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
Penguinracer said:
Air New Zealand Premium Economy is definitely worth the extra...
LHR to LAX was excellent. I wasn't paying though!

carreauchompeur

17,830 posts

203 months

Wednesday 26th October 2016
quotequote all
Penguinracer said:
Air New Zealand Premium Economy is definitely worth the extra...
Woah, that looks amazing. To be fair, I flew Air NZ Auckland-Buenos Aires on one of the first flights and it was a really pleasant experience even in cattle class.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 27th October 2016
quotequote all
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.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Thursday 27th October 2016
quotequote all
I loved flying in 757s. Some had better interiors than others (BA were excellent - Monarch's and Britannia's less so). But they had a stonking performance.

In the end, however, they were probably too powerful for their size and 737s proved to be a more economical alternative.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 27th October 2016
quotequote all
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.
Aero news is a Boeing publication.

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.

telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Thursday 27th October 2016
quotequote all
It's also based on the "tube" of a 707 so it's cramped compared to Modern designs.