I think it's a shame that all new passenger airliners are built abroad

[yorksrob]

Split from: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=143682First TPE Mark 5A bodyshell completed

Presumably you don't fly anywhere, as all new passenger airliners are built abroad?
As it was an open tender, Bombardier could have bid for it, but I don't think they did.
The other "UK" builder (Hitachi don't actually build coaches here) has a share of the TPE order (13x802).
Both this order, and the similar Northern one, are rather small and non-standard by international standards so are not attractive to most bidders.
Probably the existence of the "Mk5" production line at CAF for Caledonian Sleepers was a major factor in securing a good price.

I don't fly anywhere, yet even I think it's a shame that all new passenger airliners are built abroad.

It amuses me when the free market brigade decry the likes of Tony Benn, yet his socialist outlook enabled the UK to develop (with our French partners) a groundbreaking achievement like Concorde.

What exactly have the free market clowns achieved for Britain ?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I don't fly anywhere, yet even I think it's a shame that all new passenger airliners are built abroad.

It amuses me when the free market brigade decry the likes of Tony Benn, yet his socialist outlook enabled the UK to develop (with our French partners) a groundbreaking achievement like Concorde.

What exactly have the free market clowns achieved for Britain ?

Concorde may have been technologically clever but the only development of long-term value to civil aviation was the fly-by-wire system. It cost the UK and French governments huge sums of money to bring the project to fruition to then fail to win any export orders, though US protectionism was also a factor in this.

And operationally it was a financial lame duck. The only profitable route was London - New York, the other routes had prestige value only. I miss the sight and sound of Concorde as much as anyone but in practice it was a horribly expensive dead end.

In the same timeframe we had the development of the Boeing 737 which has made significant profits for its manufacturer, no wonder Airbus developed the similar A320 family with similar financial results. Ultimately just about all manufactured goods are subject to international competition which makes both productivity and quality, in all its aspects, absolutely vital for manufacturers to thrive. Unfortunately we rather lost our way in those areas during the 1960s and 1970s so when we elected a government more interested in promoting service industries manufacturing was always going to struggle. Railway workshops could not escape this reality.

 

[yorksrob]

And operationally it was a financial lame duck. The only profitable route was London - New York, the other routes had prestige value only. I miss the sight and sound of Concorde as much as anyone but in practice it was a horribly expensive dead end.

One could say the same thing about the moon landings, although no one ever says that humanity shouldn't have bothered with those.

I strongly suspect that had the Americans developed Concorde, it would probably be flying all over the place by now.

 

[BahrainLad]

I don't fly anywhere, yet even I think it's a shame that all new passenger airliners are built abroad.

It amuses me when the free market brigade decry the likes of Tony Benn, yet his socialist outlook enabled the UK to develop (with our French partners) a groundbreaking achievement like Concorde.

What exactly have the free market clowns achieved for Britain ?

The value of the British aerospace industry today is far higher than it would have been had we retained an independent aircraft builder.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Concorde may have been technologically clever but the only development of long-term value to civil aviation was the fly-by-wire system. It cost the UK and French governments huge sums of money to bring the project to fruition to then fail to win any export orders, though US protectionism was also a factor in this.

And operationally it was a financial lame duck. The only profitable route was London - New York, the other routes had prestige value only. I miss the sight and sound of Concorde as much as anyone but in practice it was a horribly expensive dead end.

In the same timeframe we had the development of the Boeing 737 which has made significant profits for its manufacturer, no wonder Airbus developed the similar A320 family with similar financial results. Ultimately just about all manufactured goods are subject to international competition which makes both productivity and quality, in all its aspects, absolutely vital for manufacturers to thrive. Unfortunately we rather lost our way in those areas during the 1960s and 1970s so when we elected a government more interested in promoting service industries manufacturing was always going to struggle. Railway workshops could not escape this reality.

In terms of value creation for society, the 737 and A320 did a hell of a lot more than Concorde could ever do even if it were a massive success. Concorde was never about making travel more affordable, it was about making travel faster. Making travel faster is great but if it's still unaffordable, then it'll just be a plaything for the rich. Making travel cheaper has improved the lives of billions of people who can now go abroad to visit relatives, enjoy themselves and in many cases go and find work. The free market has made it possible for the average person in the street to go to some Mediterranean island on their yearly holiday.

 

[najaB]

Concorde may have been technologically clever but the only development of long-term value to civil aviation was the fly-by-wire system. It cost the UK and French governments huge sums of money to bring the project to fruition to then fail to win any export orders, though US protectionism was also a factor in this.

It was, but not too the extent that perhaps you are implying it was. All the US airlines placed orders for Concorde.

And operationally it was a financial lame duck. The only profitable route was London - New York, the other routes had prestige value only.

That's because the B model was never introduced. It would have significantly increased the range making some trans-Pacific routes possible while reducing operating costs on the Atlantic routes. London-Barbados was consistently profitable, by the way, so much so that some days BA operated an additional flight.

It was the fuel crisis and a scare campaign over sonic booms that did for Concorde rather than protectionism on the part of the US government.

Interesting note, Concorde burned less fuel per passenger mile at cruise than a 747. It was takeoff under reheat that made it inefficient overall, the B model would only have used reheat to go supersonic.

 

[Western Lord]

It was, but not too the extent that perhaps you are implying it was. All the US airlines placed orders for Concorde.

That's because the B model was never introduced. It would have significantly increased the range making some trans-Pacific routes possible while reducing operating costs on the Atlantic routes. London-Barbados was consistently profitable, by the way, so much so that some days BA operated an additional flight.

It was the fuel crisis and a scare campaign over sonic booms that did for Concorde rather than protectionism on the part of the US government.

Interesting note, Concorde burned less fuel per passenger mile at cruise than a 747. It was takeoff under reheat that made it inefficient overall, the B model would only have used reheat to go supersonic.

No Concorde route was profitable in any normal sense of the word. I could run a profitable mini cab operation with a fleet of Rolls Royce Phantoms if I was given them and all the spares for nothing. British Airways Concorde operations covered their direct operating costs but if the cost of the aircraft had reflected the development cost they could never have broken even. Supersonic would not work on transpacific because the time zones would mean arrivals in the middle of the night.
Concorde was conceived at a time when everyone thought that faster was the future. Any aircraft that wasn't supersonic was thought to be old hat and this stupidity continued in the military for years even though hardly any military missions require supersonic speed. In the sixties when the supersonic TSR.2 was cancelled the RAF wanted the supersonic F-111 instead and when the RAF orders for that were cancelled they were forced to take Buccaneers to much criticism from some because it was not supersonic, even though it was an outstanding aircraft.

 

[najaB]

No Concorde route was profitable in any normal sense of the word. I could run a profitable mini cab operation with a fleet of Rolls Royce Phantoms if I was given them and all the spares for nothing. British Airways Concorde operations covered their direct operating costs but if the cost of the aircraft had reflected the development cost they could never have broken even.

That's no different to any other commercial airliner - typically with a widebody the first 100 or so examples are sold at a huge loss. It's possible that Airbus will never make any money at all on the A380 (which is a huge shame).

Supersonic would not work on transpacific because the time zones would mean arrivals in the middle of the night.

Seems that it would work amazingly well for businesspeople - you'd leave San Francisco at 12 noon on Sunday and arrive in Tokyo for 9am Monday. Going the other way, you'd leave Tokyo at 5pm on Friday and arrive in San Francisco at 6am on Friday.

 

[Yew]

One could say the same thing about the moon landings, although no one ever says that humanity shouldn't have bothered with those.

I strongly suspect that had the Americans developed Concorde, it would probably be flying all over the place by now.

Four words: Sonic Boom, Oil Crisis.

 

[WatcherZero]

It managed to keep on flying through the oill crisis, the market was there even with low volume of aircraft making spares very expensive. What stopped it going to a wider market was the US ban on supersonic over land.

 

[GrimShady]

Four words: Sonic Boom, Oil Crisis.

Add one: BOEING

 

[najaB]

Add one: BOEING

Not so much: Boeing 7207

 

[NotATrainspott]

It managed to keep on flying through the oill crisis, the market was there even with low volume of aircraft making spares very expensive. What stopped it going to a wider market was the US ban on supersonic over land.

The market was there for a flagship route with a huge amount of high-value business travellers. Even then, the flows were primarily in one direction. Being able to land at the same time in New York as you took off is great for meetings, but then once you're on your way back there's no point landing at 4 in the morning. Instead of losing any more time you could just sleep on the subsonic widebody flight back to Europe.

There have been ~8000 A320 derivatives and ~9500 737 derivatives built so far, with almost half that number on order for the future. That's because these planes are fundamentally better suited to the wide range of travel which happens all across the world, and that makes the lives of normal people better. As I said, Concorde was a great tool for business fliers to jet across the Atlantic on expenses, but the normal planes are a great tool for getting billions of people across the world in the air and able to do things they've never done before.

That's no different to any other commercial airliner - typically with a widebody the first 100 or so examples are sold at a huge loss. It's possible that Airbus will never make any money at all on the A380 (which is a huge shame).
Seems that it would work amazingly well for businesspeople - you'd leave San Francisco at 12 noon on Sunday and arrive in Tokyo for 9am Monday. Going the other way, you'd leave Tokyo at 5pm on Friday and arrive in San Francisco at 6am on Friday.

The A380 is a bit of a white elephant, although it has been said that it was just developed a few decades too early. A ~1000 seater airliner will be useful on short, congested Asian trunk routes between city pairs with limited airport capacity, but we're not quite there yet.

Other airliners though can be profitable effectively immediately. Boeing were right on the money with the 787 Dreamliner concept and with the orders they've got already, they'll break even. As the essential concept of the plane is solid, I would expect them to well surpass the break-even point as demand for longer distance medium widebody travel increases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's also that the 777-300ER with 3-4-3 seating is way cheaper than the A380 and isn't far off the capacity, particularly given that the kind of superior First Class you get on A380s is falling out of favour, in favour of a three-class business, premium economy and economy cabin (which are basically what 1990s first, business and economy were like).

 

[Suraggu]

The A380 works for companies like Emirates, transporting huge numbers across the world, plus the A380 is attractive to new customers and a pretty handy at taking customers away from other airlines using regional airports as emirates saw recently at Birmingham and Glasgow.

 

[najaB]

The A380 is a bit of a white elephant, although it has been said that it was just developed a few decades too early. A ~1000 seater airliner will be useful on short, congested Asian trunk routes between city pairs with limited airport capacity, but we're not quite there yet.

Getting way off into aviation rather than rail discussion, but the problem with the A380 is that they introduced the wrong variant first. The -900 would wipe the floor with the 77W on CASM in a much more pleasant environment than a 777 at 3-4-3.

The 777 at 3-3-3 is a very pleasant aircraft, 3-4-3 is just a little too cramped for my liking. It might only be a couple of cm narrower but it feels like a lot of difference on an eight-hour flight.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The A380 works for companies like Emirates, transporting huge numbers across the world, plus the A380 is attractive to new customers and a pretty handy at taking customers away from other airlines using regional airports as emirates saw recently at Birmingham and Glasgow.

However, the A380 does have a downside in that it can't carry as much cargo as a 777. The underfloor area is basically the same size on both planes, but when the A380 has more passengers on top more of the space underneath is needed for luggage. On many Emirates routes the cargo business is as lucrative as the passenger one.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I believe that Boeing are investing in a manufacturing plant near Sheffield. It's not going to make whole aircraft, but it is going to make some key components. So we may well be flying on aircraft with a UK element in the near-ish future.

 

[AlterEgo]

What's all this nonsense of no airliners being built in the UK? Bombardier's CS100 is part-built (fuselages) in Belfast.

Airbus employ around 10,000 people in Bristol and Wales making and designing, amongst other things, fuel lines, wings, and landing gear mechanisms.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nothing sums up where British aviation went wrong more than the Hawker-Siddeley Trident. A brilliant piece of kit sabotaged by too much Government meddling, especially in trying to pander to a clueless BEA, not to mention the outstanding naivete of lending some prototypes to the Americans for them to copy be inspired for the Boeing 727.

 

[rebmcr]

Boeing were right on the money with the 787 Dreamliner concept and with the orders they've got already, they'll break even. As the essential concept of the plane is solid, I would expect them to well surpass the break-even point as demand for longer distance medium widebody travel increases.

Plus, the large amount of R&D invested in modernising the whole aircraft's design from the ground up will pay off again in future models (and even to a lesser scale in retrofitting new tech to existing designs, like the 737 MAX).

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Simple economics - specialisation.

If every country built their own airliners, there would be massive duplication of development and manufacturing. Costs would rise as each country would have to develop technologies from scratch.

Given amount of technology and development involved, there is a reason why there are only two main suppliers in the whole world for wide-body airliners and a handful for smaller jets.

Even countries like Russia which are usually fully behind domestic production have excised home-made airliners almost entirely from their fleets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If every country built their own airliners, there would be massive duplication of development and manufacturing. Costs would rise as each country would have to develop technologies from scratch.

True enough, as Airbus show: it's far more efficient to have four major national manufacturers working together rather than working against each other.

Just another reason why I think Brexit was so misguided and will do so much damage to the UK...

 

[Zamracene749]

It was the age of the space race, of paranoia from the East and West, of nuclear proliferation etc. Any western government that couldn't appear to be able to protect her people from the white heat of technology would have been booted out, pronto. Hence vanity project such as Concorde and the Tupolev 144.
Still, stick your bypass turbofans, stuff the expense, sod the polar bears and let people who buy homes near airports wear earplugs--- I'd love to see what I consider the most graceful and beautiful airliner ever built fly again- bet she'd still pull crowds like any icon of the time- 4468 and 4472 anyone?

 

[WatcherZero]

Its still British RR engines in many Boeing products.

 

[Domh245]

Its still British RR engines in many Boeing products.

And plenty of Airbus products as well. RR engines powered the first flights of the A380, 787 and A350 IIRC.

 

[Jordeh]

What's all this nonsense of no airliners being built in the UK? Bombardier's CS100 is part-built (fuselages) in Belfast.

Airbus employ around 10,000 people in Bristol and Wales making and designing, amongst other things, fuel lines, wings, and landing gear mechanisms.

Its still British RR engines in many Boeing products.

So we've Rolls Royce, Airbus, Bombardier all with significant presence in the UK, employing lots of people and exporting - and BAE Systems - as well as some we've probably missed and numerous suppliers.

What exactly have the free market clowns achieved for Britain ?

It's all a bit, what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[Abpj17]

The UK doesn't have the scale for mass industrial production supported by a rich supply chain.

The UK's niche (and valuable) expertise is in the R&D work and specialist parts of the supply chain.

One hub I'm aware of is Hertfordshire with the university and a seam of firms around Watford and Hatfield.
http://www.herts.ac.uk/courses/aerospace-engineering-with-space-technology4