Both Airbus and Boeing have shown they can blow it.And here's the bottom line. $$$
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...sales-boss-facing-new-max-storm-idUSKCN1TT1SM
[doublepost=1562848298][/doublepost]
The 747 was a technological triumph for 1970 and it’s still around 50 years later.even ray charles can see the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 design
if this were true the a340 wouldnt have been the failure it was
newer engines such as the GEnx are better than the rb211 which makes the extra 2 engines unnecessary
what does antartica have to do with 4 engines
do you have a source to back this claim up or is it like your claim that the US is to blame for the concorde and a380 being a failure
at any rate if what you are saying is true if i want to know what investments to make i talk to my mechanic and if i want to know why my truck is having a problem i speak to my investment banker because they would not be an objective source when it comes to investments or cars
i know the extra engine is just being ferried but it shows how capable the 747 is
im not surprised
when the a380 was being developed the trend was already shifting to large twins
the 747 will be around for a while it has a great reputation as a freighter
i could see demand for a large widebody on slot constrained routes such as jfk-lhr or jfk-lax but as has already been stated by @cube Pilots have shown not to be an objective source when it comes to planes
i think it is the passengers wanting direct flights and not stopovers more than it is the airlines
in just about every industry outside of aviation the hub to hub model works
i agree that large twins are the future
the a380 is a copy of the MD-12 which was never launched due to lack of demand
yet airbus launched it anyway and is surprised it failed
boeing took the correct approach and released the 787 when it did
was VQ-1 the unit that lost the P-3 to the chinese