Re: What are Boeing's plans?

[Pooh Bear]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>

[Tom S.]

"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]

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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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]

"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]]

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.]

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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

[Pooh Bear]

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]

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]

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

[Matthew Chidester]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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

[Steve Robertson]

Concorde didn't have the range for trans-Pacific flight. It just barely had the
range for trans-Atlantic flight.

Best,

Steve Robertson

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.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[Fritz]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[Ted Azito]

"Matthew Chidester" > wrote in message news:<pXs3d.13921$wV.2523@attbi_s54>...
> 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.


I think allowing FBW on transports was stupid in the first place.

Allowing Boeing to buy McDonnell-Douglas was a bad idea, however.
Even though McDD management were idiots, having only one major
aircraft company just isn't smart.

[Fritz]

Ted Azito > wrote:

> Allowing Boeing to buy McDonnell-Douglas was a bad idea, however.

bad idea if all what you are goin gto do with the newly acquyired
company is to DESTROY it.

--
Fritz