Re: What are Boeing's plans?

[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

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 at 21:06:14 in message
>, Roy Smith >
wrote:

>San Francisco to Tokyo (a relatively short run by Pacific standards) is
>8276 km. Los Angeles to Tokyo is 8815 km. Could they have made those?

Yes is the answer. One stop to Tokyo and two stops to Australia. How
passengers would have felt about a two stop Pacific flight I don't
pretend to know, even if the total flight time was almost halved.

Concorde route times were claimed as San Francisco to Sydney 9:05
compared to the then estimated subsonic time of 17:40. I presume (trying
to be fair) that would be a one stop flight. Later variations of the 747
would of course do it in a single hop.
--
David CL Francis

[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)

[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