Airbus vs Boeing: A battery of problems

One is voluptuous and voluminous, combining the fulsome curves of a ’60s Playboy model with the polish and poise of a portly dowager. Critics describe her as a “dinosaur”. The other is sleek, pretty, and quick, yet capable of long outings. She was late to the ball and her antagonists deride her as incontrovertibly “plastic”. Both are modern, high strung, and elegant in their own way. They have charmed, alarmed, been grounded, and hounded. Whom would you pick?

On the surface, the Airbus vs Boeing spat may appear rather more prosaic, yet the story of this transatlantic argle-bargle – careening from the incredible to the insane – has all the ingredients of a rich period drama with bruised suitors, stiff upper lips, twists in the tale and the ever-present frisson of dark gossip surrounding wing cracks, battery smoke and engine fires. So who will be standing at the final bell? The mammoth A380 or the B787 Dreamliner? 

The hugely-delayed rollout of the Airbus A380 behemoth took place on September 25, 2007, with a Singapore Airlines inaugural flight from Singapore to Sydney, a charity event that raised US$1.83 million for Medecins Sans Frontieres and two children’s hospitals. It proved that the aircraft, while immense, was no gas guzzler, with 20 per cent less fuel burn per passenger than a conventional B747-400. By early 2013, Airbus had 262 orders for the A380.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner was delivered to the first recipient, a grateful and extraordinarily patient All Nippon Airways (ANA), on September 25, 2011, a little over three years behind schedule (a total of 890 Dreamliners are on the order books, a commercial coup). But the drama had only just begun. On January 9, a Japan Airlines Dreamliner was grounded at Boston’s Logan International Airport after a battery in the aircraft’s ancillary power system exploded. On January 16, an ANA B787 was diverted to Japan’s Takamatsu Airport and made an emergency landing after a cockpit smoke alarm went off. 

Shortly after, both ANA and JAL had grounded their B787 fleet. They were not alone. Worried about electrical fires and overheating batteries – the B787 runs almost entirely on electricity without the assistance of compressed air hydraulics – the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) speedily grounded the planes in the USA. The rest of the world followed. At one stroke, the 50 aircraft in service had disappeared from the skies as attention turned to the Japanese lithium ion battery manufacturer, GS Yuasa Corporation. 

While Boeing works on a new battery pack design using ceramic insulation, Airbus has announced that it will not use lithium-ion batteries on the under-development A350 – the purported Dreamliner-slayer – preferring traditional nickel-cadmium power.

It’s easy to focus on Boeing’s woes but both the B787 and the A380 jumbo have had their share of teething trouble. On November 4, 2010, a Qantas A380 suffered “catastrophic” engine failure over Batam, Indonesia, as one of its Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines broke its casing, damaging the wing and forcing an emergency – but safe – landing in Singapore. 

The stakes are high. Airbus has opted for a super size aeroplane that could render the stalwart B747 all but obsolete, transporting a vast scrum of bodies in one neat package. While offering 49 per cent more room than a Boeing 747 and 50 per cent less cabin noise, the Airbus 380’s operating costs are around 15 to 20 per cent lower per seat. Add to this fewer emissions, less noise, and a huge seat capacity stretching from the median 555 to a staggering 800 (that has airline accountants salivating). 

Boeing believes large capacity aircraft flying to big, overcrowded, dispersal “hubs” are passe. Travellers want speed, frequency, and direct connections. The B787 is swift and fuel efficient, with a cruising speed of Mach 0.85. It is smaller and can access regional airports without fuss. It also has a range that can extend to 16,000km carrying about 280 passengers. The B787 is pressurised for a lower altitude and with higher cabin humidity, which means you will not arrive at the other end looking and feeling like a desiccated peanut. Indeed, a depressed travel market could favour the B787. 

The new, and larger, Airbus is a beast of a carrier. Assembly is tedious with hundreds of kilometres of wire that have to be painstakingly fed through various parts of the frame. It needs more runway, more taxiway for the sweep of its enormous 79m wingspan, and boarding gates need reworking – racking up cost for airports. 

The Dreamliner is deliciously different. It has opted for a sweeping archways design and light diodes in the ceiling that mimic the changing sky colours. The 787 cabin offers window shades whose opacity can be altered at the flick of a button and greater humidification of cabin air. Aisles are wider as are the seats. 

Ironically, Boeing could have launched the very first double-decker aircraft over three decades ago. Pressed by visionary Pan Am founder Juan Trippe for large double-decker aircraft, Boeing responded by designing the widebody B747, arguing that a two-storey aircraft would be plagued by far too many limitations.

Was big always beautiful? The prodigious and spectacularly ill starred 12-engine Dornier Do-X was the world’s biggest aircraft in 1929, its hull accommodating a full three floors. The Wall Street crash ended its career. By 1949, double-decker Boeing 377 Stratocruisers were plying the North Atlantic with opulent digs, and even living rooms, for first class passengers. 

Small or strapping? Take your pick. Barring the hugely successful B747, aviation history has not been kind to passenger aircraft behemoths. Now, once again, we shall have to wait and see.

 

Vijay Verghese is an editor of Smart Travel Asia – an online travel magazine. Visit www.SmartTravelAsia.com.