Re: What are Boeing's plans? [Archive]

Kevin Brooks

September 18th 04, 02:59 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Jarg wrote:
>
>> "G Farris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51>,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >>They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time
>> >>that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The
>> >>747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo
>> >>loading.
>> >>
>> >>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
>> >>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
>> >>that Boeing made the right decision.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Why should we hope that??
>> >
>> > G Faris
>>
>> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
>> more jobs and more money for Americans!
>
> *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the trees?
The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European
based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a
couple of major systems for it. Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind
continuing to sell engines for it. Some ten nations have companies
contributing to the 7E7 work right now.

Brooks

>
>
> Graham
>
>

Pooh Bear

September 18th 04, 04:30 AM

Jarg wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jarg wrote:
> >
> >> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51>,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
> >> >>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
> >> >>that Boeing made the right decision.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Why should we hope that??
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
> >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
> >
> > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?

Not sure if Shorts ( Belfast ) get a look in on Airbus contracts. I know of no
Aerospace manufacturing in the Republic.

Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 18th 04, 04:38 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jarg wrote:
> >
> >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
> >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
> >
> > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
>
> Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the trees?

Nope.

> The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European
> based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a
> couple of major systems for it.

If it doesn't succeed I'm sure they'll pick up business elsewhere. They're an
avionics supplier, their product isn't tied to a single airframe.

> Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind continuing to sell engines for it.

Rolls Royce are probably rather more interested in the Trent 900 sales that'll
come from the A380 ( 4 per a/c too ! ) right now - and they're firm orders !
They are the launch engine provider after all.

> Some ten nations have companies contributing to the 7E7 work right now.

But not making.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 18th 04, 04:50 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over
> > the rest of the line?
> >
> > I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
> > there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
> > lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.
>
> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
> forever)

No ?

My fave large a/c is still the 747 ( not keen on 777 - feels cramped to me - and
I'm sure that factor will be a great seller for A380 ) . 747's been around a
while hasn't it ! ;-)

Modern version of 737s still sell well and how old is that design originally ?

Even some ancient 727s were only recently pensioned off in the US.

> with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have
> to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my
> replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread).

Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor is
skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I just
mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades back.

Graham

Jarg

September 18th 04, 05:06 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jarg wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jarg wrote:
>> >
>> >> "G Farris" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article <EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51>,
>> >> > says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
>> >> >>decker.
>> >> >>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
>> >> >>hope
>> >> >>that Boeing made the right decision.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Why should we hope that??
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
>> >> into
>> >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
>> >
>> > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
>> >
>> > Graham
>> >
>>
>> Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?
>
> Not sure if Shorts ( Belfast ) get a look in on Airbus contracts. I know
> of no
> Aerospace manufacturing in the Republic.
>
> Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?
>
>
> Graham
>

Is Ireland not part of Europe?

Jarg

Peter Stickney

September 18th 04, 05:14 AM

In article >,
Pooh Bear > writes:
>
> wrote:
>
>> One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
>> if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
>> the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
>> hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
>
> BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
> hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
> crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
> numbers by the time it was back in service.

The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.

As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.
Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.

To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California->Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Pooh Bear

September 18th 04, 06:03 AM

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > writes:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
> >> if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
> >> the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
> >> hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
> >
> > BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
> > hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
> > crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
> > numbers by the time it was back in service.
>
> The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
> written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
> a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
> costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.

Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.

It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build
the plane.

Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them
after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.

> As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
> performance airframe.

Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.

> The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.

Uhuh.

> Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
> if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
> speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
> at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
> was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
> the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
> Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
> divert airfield.

It worked !

> To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
> ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
> miles. (IIRC, the California->Honolulu leg is the longest single
> stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
> Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
> bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
> epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
> expensive proposition.

Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though?

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 18th 04, 06:41 AM

Jarg wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jarg wrote:
> >
> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Jarg wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article <EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51>,
> >> >> > says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
> >> >> >>decker.
> >> >> >>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
> >> >> >>hope
> >> >> >>that Boeing made the right decision.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why should we hope that??
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
> >> >> into
> >> >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
> >> >
> >> > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?
> >
> > Not sure if Shorts ( Belfast ) get a look in on Airbus contracts. I know
> > of no
> > Aerospace manufacturing in the Republic.
> >
> > Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?
> >
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> Is Ireland not part of Europe?
>
> Jarg

Sure - and so is Lichtenstein.

Your point is ?

The major players/partners in Airbus are French, German, Spanish and British.
There are obviously 'spinoff' contracts elsewhere.

Sorry if Ireland, the Czech Republic, Denmark or whoever aren't specifically
involved. The benefit to the the EU is real nonetheless.

Graahm

Ian Craig

September 18th 04, 09:21 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jarg wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Jarg wrote:
> > >
> > >> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > In article <EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51>,
> > >> > says...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
decker.
> > >> >>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
hope
> > >> >>that Boeing made the right decision.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Why should we hope that??
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
> > >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
> > >
> > > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
> > >
> > > Graham
> > >
> >
> > Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?
>
> Not sure if Shorts ( Belfast ) get a look in on Airbus contracts. I know
of no
> Aerospace manufacturing in the Republic.
>
Am pretty sure that Shorts don't have any Airbus contracts - think they
worked pretty much exclusively on Bombardier and Boeing.

Besides, Shorts (Belfast) is in Northern Ireland so British.....(running to
avoid the obvious politcal bomb here)

John Mullen

September 18th 04, 11:53 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Pooh Bear > writes:
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
>> >> if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
>> >> the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow
>> >> the
>> >> hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
>> >
>> > BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of
>> > years -
>> > hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the
>> > Paris
>> > crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced
>> > passenger
>> > numbers by the time it was back in service.
>>
>> The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
>> written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
>> a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
>> costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.
>
> Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.
>
> It was a political decision by the British and French governments to
> design and build
> the plane.
>
> Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would
> buy them
> after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.
>
>
>> As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
>> performance airframe.
>
> Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.
>
>> The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.
>
> Uhuh.
>
>
>> Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
>> if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
>> speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
>> at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
>> was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
>> the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
>> Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
>> divert airfield.
>
> It worked !
>
>
>> To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
>> ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
>> miles. (IIRC, the California->Honolulu leg is the longest single
>> stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
>> Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
>> bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
>> epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
>> expensive proposition.

And, it should also be pointed out, never flew.

John

Kevin Brooks

September 18th 04, 12:15 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over
>> > the rest of the line?
>> >
>> > I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
>> > there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
>> > lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.
>>
>> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
>> forever)
>
> No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that.

>
> My fave large a/c is still the 747 ( not keen on 777 - feels cramped to
> me - and
> I'm sure that factor will be a great seller for A380 ) . 747's been
> around a
> while hasn't it ! ;-)

Uhmmm...they still build them, that is correct. A lot of the older, higher
hour airframes were either converted to cargo use, put out to pasture, or
both.

>
> Modern version of 737s still sell well and how old is that design
> originally ?

Yep, they still build them. Again, the original versions have gotten kind of
long in the totth, and retirements have already begun.

>
> Even some ancient 727s were only recently pensioned off in the US.

Exactly--they don't last forever, do they?

>
>> with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have
>> to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my
>> replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread).
>
> Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor is
> skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I just
> mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades
> back.

I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
financial backers.

What was your point to all of this? According to an article in the August 04
Air International, Boeing sees a potnetially lucrative market for the 7E7 as
a replacement for older airframes nearing or exceeding their 20th
anniversary in the next few years (according to the article, some 1500
aircraft total meet that description in the niches the 7E7 would fill). You
apparently think otherwise--fine. I am willing to go out on a limb here (not
really) and state that Boeing knows more about it than you do.

Brooks
>
>
> Graham
>

Kevin Brooks

September 18th 04, 12:22 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jarg wrote:
>> >
>> >> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
>> >> into
>> >> more jobs and more money for Americans!
>> >
>> > *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.
>>
>> Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the
>> trees?
>
> Nope.
>
>
>> The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European
>> based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a
>> couple of major systems for it.
>
> If it doesn't succeed I'm sure they'll pick up business elsewhere. They're
> an
> avionics supplier, their product isn't tied to a single airframe.

Pretty poor business view, IMO. "Ahhh, forget about bothering over those
sales--surely we can sell it elsewhere"?

>
>
>> Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind continuing to sell engines for it.
>
> Rolls Royce are probably rather more interested in the Trent 900 sales
> that'll
> come from the A380 ( 4 per a/c too ! ) right now - and they're firm orders
> !

7E7 has firm orders too--you keep forgetting that, don't you? Or do you just
have a serious reading comprehension problem?

> They are the launch engine provider after all.
>
>
>> Some ten nations have companies contributing to the 7E7 work right now.
>
> But not making.

Ahhh! So companies should consider future business as irrelevant, eh? Maiden
flight is scheduled for 2007--not that far off, now is it? One can only
assume with the business sense you have demonstrated thus far, that you are
not employed in any kind of key business decisionmaking role.

Brooks

>
>
> Graham
>
>

Tom S.

September 18th 04, 01:05 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
ones
> >> forever)
> >
> > No ?
>
> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know that.

What's the service life of a DC-3?

Roy Smith

September 18th 04, 01:30 PM

In article >,
> I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
> states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
> financial backers.

I read somewhere (I vaguely recollect the NY Times Magazine, but could
be wrong on that) some time ago that 727's were favored by drug runners.
Huge cargo capacity, able to land and take off from dirt fields, and
cheap enough that if they need to abandon it someplace, it's no great
loss.

Peter Stickney

September 18th 04, 03:07 PM

In article >,
Pooh Bear > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Pooh Bear > writes:
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
>> >> if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
>> >> the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
>> >> hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
>> >
>> > BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
>> > hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
>> > crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
>> > numbers by the time it was back in service.
>>
>> The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
>> written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
>> a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
>> costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.
>
> Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.

Actually, I'd say that it is. In the Real World, it still costs money
to develop and produce something. That money gets paid out no matter
what. If you can't make it back, its a net loss of resources.
Now, I suppose that you could subscribe to the delusion that
Government Money isn't really money, and so doesn't matter, but even
the most Ardent Socialist would agree that it is a marker for
resources spent that could have been spent otherwise. How many Dog
Shelters in Battersea, or Labour Exchanges in East Acton could have
been supported with the dosh that was dumped into Concorde?

> It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build
> the plane.
>
> Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them
> after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.

Actually, the bottom fell out of Concorde orders in the late '60s,
before the oil proce hikes. Concorde was too limited. There was no
growth in the airframe, and its operating economics were miserable by
even 1960s standards, let alone amortizing R&D.
But then again, it had been so long since the British Aviation
Industry as a whole had actually sold enough airliners to amortize R&D
that I wonder if they realized that they could. (The only airliners to
make money for theri manufacturers were the Viscount and the BAC 1-11.
(Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings,
Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are
only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers,
economically.

>
>> As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
>> performance airframe.
>
> Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.

Passenger capacity has nothing to do with it, other than being the
airplane's reason for existing. The real problems are fuel capacity
and performance. Concorde didn't have any reserves available that
could be diverted to either. Over the COncorde's career, there were
enough such emergencies that there would have been at least 5 or 6
losses, in this context.

>> The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.
>
> Uhuh.

Without a doubt, for revenue service. An inflight emergency on the
San Fran->Hawaii leg would have meant a lost airplane due to fuel
exhaustion, in most cases. Plus, even the shorter legs are still
damned long - Even if you duplicated the route of the Pan Am flying
boats - San Francisco->Honolulu->Midway->Wake->Manila->Hong Kong -
it's still unworkable wrt safety, and the stops would have added
tremendously to the travel time, annoyed the passengers, and shortened
the life of the airframes.
>
>> Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
>> if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
>> speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
>> at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
>> was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
>> the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
>> Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
>> divert airfield.
>
> It worked !

Only over that particular route.
>
>> To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
>> ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
>> miles. (IIRC, the California->Honolulu leg is the longest single
>> stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
>> Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
>> bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
>> epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
>> expensive proposition.
>
> Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though?

They would have had to have been able to demonstrate that they could
fly the routes with a proper safety margin, first. It would have been
possible, but embarassing, to stage Concordes across the U.S., if you
wanted to run a through service from, say, London to Tokyo. BA and
Braniff had an arrangement where Braniff flew a Concorde service to
Florida from New York, ocerland. The U.S. (or Canadian) legs would
have had to be subsonic, of course, and teh Concorde's low subsonic
ceiling (Nothing you can do about that, either) hamstrung it in terms
of range and speed - It's embarassing to by getting on what's supposed
to be the World's Fastest Airliner, and having every 727 or DC-9 beat
you from New York to LA or SFO.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Kevin Brooks

September 18th 04, 03:28 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
> ones
>> >> forever)
>> >
>> > No ?
>>
>> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
>> that.
>
> What's the service life of a DC-3?

Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of
late?

Brooks

>
>

Keith Willshaw

September 18th 04, 05:19 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
> ones
>> >> forever)
>> >
>> > No ?
>>
>> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
>> that.
>
> What's the service life of a DC-3?
>
>

10,665 were built of which less than 400 remain in flyable condition

Nuff said.

Keith

[email protected]

September 18th 04, 05:29 PM

In rec.aviation.owning Keith Willshaw > wrote:

> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
> > ones
> >> >> forever)
> >> >
> >> > No ?
> >>
> >> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
> >> that.
> >
> > What's the service life of a DC-3?
> >
> >

> 10,665 were built of which less than 400 remain in flyable condition

> Nuff said.

> Keith

Does the 10,665 include the C-47 and Li-2?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Tom S.

September 18th 04, 06:52 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
> > ones
> >> >> forever)
> >> >
> >> > No ?
> >>
> >> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
> >> that.
> >
> > What's the service life of a DC-3?
>
> Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of
> late?
>
Why would the number of major airlines be at all relevant?

Peter Stickney

September 18th 04, 08:24 PM

In article >,
writes:
> In rec.aviation.owning Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
>> > ones
>> >> >> forever)
>> >> >
>> >> > No ?
>> >>
>> >> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > What's the service life of a DC-3?
>> >
>> >
>
>> 10,665 were built of which less than 400 remain in flyable condition
>
>> Nuff said.
>
>> Keith
>
> Does the 10,665 include the C-47 and Li-2?

Yep. And the C-53, and the C-41. (One of the C-41s is, I think, still
flying. The Otis Spunkmeyer cookie folks owned it at least through
the 1990s._

The comparison of later airplane lifetimes with the DC-3 is largely
irrelevant, though. The DC-3 operates on a much more benign
environment wrt metal fatigue and acoustic vibration that "wear out"
airframes. The tough problems with running DC-3s/C-47s these days is
getting engines for them, and finding fuel.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Leadfoot

September 18th 04, 10:51 PM

Boeings take on aircraft service life is that it can be indefinite so long
as the sircraft is maintained properly. There has never been a requirement
to retire a Boeing aircraft after "X" number of whatevers. I suspect the
747 will fare far better than the DC-3 over a 70 year period.

Kevin Brooks

September 18th 04, 11:04 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
>> > ones
>> >> >> forever)
>> >> >
>> >> > No ?
>> >>
>> >> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > What's the service life of a DC-3?
>>
>> Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of
>> late?
>>
> Why would the number of major airlines be at all relevant?

They are the folks who buy most of the airplanes--you know, the thing we
were talking about here?

Brooks
>
>
>

Peter Stickney

September 19th 04, 01:18 AM

In article <3523d.323018$Oi.300857@fed1read04>,
"Leadfoot" > writes:
> Boeings take on aircraft service life is that it can be indefinite so long
> as the sircraft is maintained properly. There has never been a requirement
> to retire a Boeing aircraft after "X" number of whatevers. I suspect the
> 747 will fare far better than the DC-3 over a 70 year period.

While you're correct about Boeing's take on service life, the fact
remains that, at some point in its life (the end, of course) a 747
will start showing cracks in wing spars, and the fuselage pressure
vessel, and all manner of other areas, and it will become uneconomical
to repair it. That's already happening. the DC-3 series of airplanes
hasn't shown any of these behaviors. That's not too surprising,
really - The DC-3's wing structure is fairly stiff, and it uses Jack
Northrop's multi-cellular construction techniques. There are multiple
load paths there, so individual elements aren't stressed too highly.
It's not pressurized, so you're not inflating and deflating the cabin
on each flight. The 747, and, for that matter, any other jet, is much
more flexible, and has to put up with the stresses and strains of
pressurization, At some point, it's going to give.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Bob Moore

September 19th 04, 01:49 AM

"Tom S." > wrote

> "Kevin Brooks" wrote
>> No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
>> that.

>
> What's the service life of a DC-3?

Since all loads in a DC-3 are carried by high strength fittings
and not by "stressed skin", the CD-3 has no specified service
life as do the modern jetliners.
I recall seeing a TV interview with Mr. Douglas in which he explained
that by replacing the bushel basket of fittings that he had brought
with him, any DC-3 airframe could be made good as new.

Bob Moore

Dylan Smith

September 19th 04, 10:03 AM

In article >, Peter Stickney wrote:
> (Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings,
> Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are
> only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers,
> economically.

Don't forget the Trident!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

G Farris

September 19th 04, 04:13 PM

I happen to subscribe to the believe that the best player(s) should win.
Boeing has been trailing Airbus for some years now, both in technological
development and in marketing strategy. Condit has paid the price, which I'm
sure came as a surprise to no one here, and the company is logically paying
the price in market share.

There is room for both, of course, and there is a serious issue regarding
subsidies. If you listen to Boeing execs, they'll tell you you don't
contribute anything to the 7E7 program until you actually fly in one, whereas
the A380 will cost a lot to the European taxpayers, even if they never fly,
and particularly if it's not successful. The truth, as usual, is a bit more
shades of grey, as both companies have received and will continue to receive
considerable subsidies - but Boeing has a point nevertheless. No one will ask
the European citizens their opinion before bailing out Airbus, should the A380
fail to meet expectations. In fact, they will never even be told the full
amount of the subsidy they're to hit up for.

You have to give Airbus some credit - not only for coming up to parity market
share with Boeing in so few years, but also for forging ahead with a real
market strategy. "We're tired of being shut out of long haul markets,because
we have no answer to the 747, so we're going to out-jumbo the jumbo!" Time
will tell if it's a good move or not, but it's at least a readable strategy,
while Boeing has been flirting around for years with different flavored
fantasies, before finally settling on what looks like a typical medium-haul
airliner with a curvy paint scheme.

It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling
public, but very risky business for manufacturers.

G Faris

Pooh Bear

September 19th 04, 08:21 PM

Smutny wrote:

> The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
> more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
> down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
> where the circus sets up a couple times a year.

BAe has done this to Hatfield ( formerly owned by Hawker Siddeley and de
Havilland ) , the home of the jet airliner, just to name one significant
product made there.

Oh, sure, the management said they would *never* close Hatfield.

The real estate was worth too much as a business park and BAe wanted to
concentrate on defence contracts instead of commercial.

Sounds kinds similar.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 19th 04, 08:28 PM

Matthew Chidester wrote:

> 737 next generation a mistake? they just got a huge order from the navy to
> replace the p-3...
>
> I agree, it seems like Canadair and Embraer will take over the small stuff
> and most start up airlines are sticking with Airbus (lower maintenance
> costs?)

Don't forget, the A320 series includes the A318 now ( 108 seats IIRC ). I was
quite surprised that the A318 was developed as a result of customer demand (
Lufthansa ? ) but when you consider that the A320 series encompasses a greater
than 2:1 pax capacity with unified sytems - it kinds makes sense.

> I wish someone would post the prices and performance of the aircraft
> so we could compare and see why airlines pick the planes they do.

I wish ! Of course that would also depend on your ( the airlines ) accounting
methods too.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 19th 04, 08:37 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jarg,
>
> > Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
> > more jobs and more money for Americans!
>
> And who would be "we"? This is the Internet, not the USAnet.

Mercuns tend to forget they're not the planet's only technically competent
inhabitants.

> More to the point: A large portion of the A380 (40 percent, IIRC) will be
> built in the US.

It will ?

Where did you hear that ? News to me.

> You ever heard of this new-fangled thing called globalizaton? It's here,
> man.

It also involves many 'first world' nation jobs being outsourced to mainly
asian countries. I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
and no longer require *us* !

I speak from some experience of the situation.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 19th 04, 09:01 PM

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > writes:
> > Peter Stickney wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> Pooh Bear > writes:
> >> >
> >> > BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
> >> > hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
> >> > crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
> >> > numbers by the time it was back in service.
> >>
> >> The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
> >> written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
> >> a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
> >> costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.
> >
> > Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.
>
> Actually, I'd say that it is. In the Real World, it still costs money
> to develop and produce something. That money gets paid out no matter
> what. If you can't make it back, its a net loss of resources.
> Now, I suppose that you could subscribe to the delusion that
> Government Money isn't really money, and so doesn't matter, but even
> the most Ardent Socialist would agree that it is a marker for
> resources spent that could have been spent otherwise. How many Dog
> Shelters in Battersea, or Labour Exchanges in East Acton could have
> been supported with the dosh that was dumped into Concorde?

In the short term, yes you could have had more dog shelters.

If you want to talk about employment exchanges, I suggest you consider how Margaret
Thatcher's industrial policies ( large scale unemployment to cripple the left ) were
funded by North Sea oil revenues ( taxes ).

In the long term, Concorde paved the way for Airbus.

Without Airbus there would be no European aviation industry of note.

I doubt that anyone could have truly seen that far ahead - but the mould was cast back
then.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 19th 04, 09:05 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In article >, Peter Stickney wrote:
> > (Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings,
> > Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are
> > only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers,
> > economically.
>
> Don't forget the Trident!

If de Havilland hadn't been obliged to scale down the Trident to suit BEA
and then later scale it back up again ( to suit BEA ! ) , it would have
been far more sucessful.

Graham

David CL Francis

September 20th 04, 12:34 AM

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 at 10:07:50 in message
>, Peter Stickney >
wrote:

>Without a doubt, for revenue service. An inflight emergency on the
>San Fran->Hawaii leg would have meant a lost airplane due to fuel
>exhaustion, in most cases. Plus, even the shorter legs are still
>damned long - Even if you duplicated the route of the Pan Am flying
>boats - San Francisco->Honolulu->Midway->Wake->Manila->Hong Kong -
>it's still unworkable wrt safety, and the stops would have added
>tremendously to the travel time, annoyed the passengers, and shortened
>the life of the airframes.

I am pretty sure that a Concorde flying from London to New York could
be forced to descend halfway across to subsonic cruise and still make
the destination. As I recall it was postulated that it might
occasionally be necessary due to a sudden upsurge of Solar radiation.
Radiation levels were monitored on the aircraft. A loss of one engine
could also be dealt with in the same way.

Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically
hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world.

Pacific routes are included as follows

West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from
Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi.

West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all.

Other routes include London to Vancouver and Los Angeles via Churchill
in Canada and flown subsonic over the USA to Los Angeles.

I am not convinced that the subsonic range of Concorde was
significantly different from the supersonic range.

--
David CL Francis

Matthew Chidester

September 20th 04, 05:23 AM

well I hope boeing comes out of this and stays alive, from a pilot
perspective I'm not a fan of joysticks on the side for flight controls and
i've worked around them.. they're pretty aircraft, I just wouldn't want to
fly in that cockpit.

Matthew

Pooh Bear

September 20th 04, 06:16 AM

Smutny wrote:

> As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
> all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
> historical sales figures.

And they go back a long, long way !

> What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
> product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
> market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
> design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
> they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.

So..... Airbus's idea of making multiple capacity variants of the ( 737
competitor ) A320 ( A318, A319, A320, A321 ) was more sensible I guess ? Same
cockpit - same operating procedures - same handling ( fbw ) .

Then they made bigger twin aisle versions ( A330, A340 ) with the same flight
controls and similar handling - making conversion very easy.

Was that what you reckoned Boeing should have done after 757/767 ?

> Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
> new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.

A380 is a pretty new concept too ! Mind you, I saw a documentary where Airbus's
Chief Exec simply jokingly described it as an A330 stuck on top of an A340 !

Similar cockpit ( but somewhat larger ), controls and handling to other fbw
airbuses are promised. Ease of conversion once again.

Graham

Pooh Bear

September 20th 04, 06:21 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
> some routes that can use the greater capacity.

" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.

If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.

Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
different operating scenarios.

Graham

Smutny

September 20th 04, 06:57 AM

Airlines that use 737's on trans-Atlantic routes may benefit from the
7E7 as a replacement if load factors increase. But the vast majority
of 737's live in a high cycle, short flight environment. Not
something touted as a big selling point of the 7E7.

-j-

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:21:33 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
>> some routes that can use the greater capacity.
>
>" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.
>
>If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.
>
>Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
>different operating scenarios.
>
>
>Graham

Smutny

September 20th 04, 07:11 AM

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:16:05 +0100, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>Smutny wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
>> all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
>> historical sales figures.
>
>And they go back a long, long way !
>
>
>> What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
>> product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
>> market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
>> design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
>> they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.
>
>So..... Airbus's idea of making multiple capacity variants of the ( 737
>competitor ) A320 ( A318, A319, A320, A321 ) was more sensible I guess ? Same
>cockpit - same operating procedures - same handling ( fbw ) .
>
>Then they made bigger twin aisle versions ( A330, A340 ) with the same flight
>controls and similar handling - making conversion very easy.

The big selling point on cockpit commonality is drastically reduced
training and recurrency costs to the airlines. Crew movement up and
down the fleet is also simplifed as various factors change route needs
and employees are re-deployed.

The beauty of having one airfame in various fuselage lengths is not
only cockpit comonality, but maintenance and spares issues are
simplified as well.

>
>Was that what you reckoned Boeing should have done after 757/767 ?
>

Boeing scuttled the process when the 777 was not 'in the family' and
competed with the larger 767s. The 757-100 was never built, and the
-300 came too late to save the line. The 737 Next Gen is had an
adverse impact on the 757-100 development. So in essence, Boeing
created its own competition and that hurt. That should have been
better thought through.

>
>> Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
>> new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.
>
>A380 is a pretty new concept too ! Mind you, I saw a documentary where Airbus's
>Chief Exec simply jokingly described it as an A330 stuck on top of an A340 !
>

I have no idea if Airbus is making the A380 cockpit common to any of
the rest of thier line. But when you go after the biggest or the
fastest parts of the evelope, it's hard to stay common.

>Similar cockpit ( but somewhat larger ), controls and handling to other fbw
>airbuses are promised. Ease of conversion once again.
>
>
>Graham

Thomas Borchert

September 20th 04, 07:53 AM

Pooh,

Hmm, I looked for the article I read that number in, but can't find it.
Will try to call Airbus later today to verify. But if you consider the
amount of avionics and standard aviation equipment going in, it makes
sense.

> I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
> and no longer require *us* !
>

Oh, I agree. Fully.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Paul Sengupta

September 20th 04, 12:01 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor
is
> > skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I
just
> > mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades
> > back.
>
> I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
> states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
> financial backers.

Question - how efficient is a 727 re-engined with the RR Tay conversion?
These seem popular with the higher end of biz-jet operators.

I think someone on here, though may have been on TV, said that the
difference between cruise speeds on various airliners is to do with the
critical speed of the wing. Above this speed, the thrust required is much
more, so you use much more fuel. The 747 was designed for a faster
speed in this respect so has a higher cruise speed? I think the 727 was
quoted as being quite good at M 0.75 but not at 0.85? Something like
that?

Paul

Paul Sengupta

September 20th 04, 12:10 PM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > Don't forget the Trident!
>
> If de Havilland hadn't been obliged to scale down the Trident to suit BEA
> and then later scale it back up again ( to suit BEA ! ) , it would have
> been far more sucessful.

Indeed. You could say it was tremendously successful eventually, but by
then it was known as the Boeing 727. Boeing apparently hired 9 of the
Trident's designers and they made one without one hand tied behind
their backs.

Paul

Paul Sengupta

September 20th 04, 12:17 PM

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically
> hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world.
>
> Pacific routes are included as follows
>
> West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
> Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from
> Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi.
>
> West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all.

If any more Concordes had been made, they would have been the
"B" model. These would have had leading edge devices and other
high lift tricks to lower take-off and lading speed. They also had
more efficient engines. They apparently would have used 30% less
fuel, giving the plane a longer range (I'm not sure I have this absolutely
right, I'm quoting from my memory of reading Brian Trubshaw's
autobiography).

Regarding paying back of the design costs, it may well have happened
if the airlines had taken up the 70+ options they initially specified.

Of course, as has been mentioned, the venture as a whole continues
to pay in the guise of Airbus.

Paul

Paul Sengupta

September 20th 04, 12:23 PM

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling
> public, but very risky business for manufacturers.

Mmm. Competition. How much competition is there if Airbus
make the only real choice in the 500+ seat market and Boeing
make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market? :-)

Paul

Thomas Borchert

September 20th 04, 03:13 PM

Paul,

> and Boeing
> make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market
>

that's a big if, if ever I saw one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Fritz

September 26th 04, 07:38 PM

Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> > And what happened to the plans to use the 767 as replacement for the
> > KC-135?
>
> Still in limbo for the USAF. Italy and Japan have purchased 767 tanker
> mods, though.

Anithing tp do with teh fact that Italian Avionavali will make the
transformation? Looks like a political choice.

--
Fritz

Fritz

September 26th 04, 07:54 PM

Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
> >> forever)
> >
> > No ?
>
> No. Aircraft have definite service lives.

Some helicopters don't.

--
Fritz

Fritz

September 26th 04, 08:07 PM

Pooh Bear > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
> > if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
> > the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
> > hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
>
> BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable
2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

--
Fritz

Keith Willshaw

September 26th 04, 11:08 PM

"Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
>> > if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
>> > the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
>> > hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
>>
>> BA actually made good money on Concorde
>
> It looks to me that BA lose money twice:
>
> 1) the Concorde was never profitable

BA made money from Concorde since they were practically
given the aircraft free, the taxpayer footed the development bill.

> 2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

Perhaps but prior to the 1970's oil price hike most people thought
supersonic was the way to go, including Boeing who had
their own SST project.

Keith

Kevin Brooks

September 27th 04, 12:23 AM

"Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>> >> 7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
>> >> ones
>> >> forever)
>> >
>> > No ?
>>
>> No. Aircraft have definite service lives.
>
> Some helicopters don't.

Point to the modern passenger carrying aircraft that offers infinite cycles
and airframe hours.

Brooks

>
> --
> Fritz

Pooh Bear

September 27th 04, 06:05 AM

Fritz wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
> > > if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
> > > the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
> > > hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
> >
> > BA actually made good money on Concorde
>
> It looks to me that BA lose money twice:
>
> 1) the Concorde was never profitable

On the terms that they ( BA ) acquuired the aircraft - it was indeed
profitable.

BOAC probably lost money on Concorde operations but when BA was formed by
combining BOAC and BEA it was expected to be commercially viable and negotiated
a 'deal' on the price it paid for Concorde.

>
> 2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

That's not an issue for BA as an operator. BA made money from 747 ops too.

Of course there is now a 'super-jumbo' on its way that's European, that would
likely never have seen the light of day had it not been for the spin-off
collaboration that created Airbus, following Concorde's development.

Graham