Somehow, in my typing, I managed to type part of my reply to BAHA after the normal tag line of "On Wednesday, December 4, 2003 at 10:02 PM, Bahadir Acuner wrote:" BAHA's actual reply begins with "Couldn't agree less...." My mistake -- much as I'd like to blame it on my computer. My actual reply was: BAHA & list: Airbus forecasts are based on passenger trends and how (incredibly stupid) airlines will respond to them. And they've been right -- no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of American airlines, to paraphrase someone or other. Why should Europeans have to go through Euro O'Hell's to get to Asia? The people in Frankfurt are not stupid; I imagine they like being a hub. It is good business -- in fact, make sure that passengers have really long layovers and many will wander into town and spend money there, or even decide to spend a few days there. (In the US, it is not lucrative for the locals who want to fly domestically from a hub city; they pay more than others flying similar routes). #2 is true only if you are traveling from Euro O'Hell to Asian O'Hell. Point to point service would actually cost the airline less if it could figure out how to do it. The more hubs a traveller passes through, the worse things get. #3 might be true, but point to point (or at least single hub trips instead of double hub trips) might make 380 unnecessary. Actually, the next big thing would not be much more efficient planes or economical SST's (although they would be great), the next big thing would be airlines intelligently run. As a sideline: As you may know, United is ditching Atlantic for Mesa as its regional in Dulles. Mesa then wanted to subcontract the deal to....yep, Atlantic. (See the Washington Post Thanksgiving Week, or early this week) BAHA's original was: > Couldn't agree less.. > As I mentioned before, A380 is developed with Asian traffic in mind. > > The airports like LHR and FRA will need this airplane to fly many many > more pax to Asia. People in Frankfurt are not stupid.. > > The long range and fuel efficient aircraft issue has been in the talks > for last 2 decades that I know of. There are reasons why that cannot be > achieved : > > 1. Current engine technology is not efficient enough.. > > 2. The number of people that you will devide the direct operating > cost to will be lower. > > 3. If a very efficient engine technology is developed for the low > capacity/ > low cost engine, don't you think that will not be used for big > airplanes > like 744 and A380. > > Let's face it since day 1 Airbus has been extremely successful in > forcasting > demand for a certain type of aircraft. In some respects they were more > successful on the A320 family compared to say A340 family. (Even though > -600 and -500 series are adding more + points to that model). > > Oh yeah, what happened to Boeing's faster , efficient pax aircraft that > they presented as rival to A380??? Hmmm... > > BAHA > Overnighting in O'Hell because of Atlatic Coast Latelines getting me > here > late. > Sorry for any confusion. john John Kurtzke, C.S.C. Department of Mathematics University of Portland Portland OR 97203 503-943-7377