Boeing 7E7 Announcement

[Scott Duncan]

The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
really good news for Boeing...?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
m...
> The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> really good news for Boeing...?

Sure, the Japanese are nice people.

[Jack G]

Wonder if they are working on a 7E7 Tanker version already?

Jack

(in Everett WA where the 7E7 will be assembled from major assemblies made
everywhere)


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
m...
> The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> really good news for Boeing...?

Let's see...is Japan now, or likely in the near future, going to be a
competitor in the large transport arena? No. Is it rather common to sub out
fabrication of major components to companies located in other nations? Yes.
Does Japan offer a potential sizeable market for an aircraft like the 7E7?
Yes. I'd therefore say that it surely does not sound like a BAD deal for
Boeing.

Wasn't there some serious discussion just a couple of years back between
Airbus and the PRC to do a similar deal?

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Wonder if they are working on a 7E7 Tanker version already?
>
> Jack
>
> (in Everett WA where the 7E7 will be assembled from major assemblies made
> everywhere)

This is not so different from the major sections of the 777 the Japan makes.
The shop in Everett mostly asssmebles pieces, plus the wire community. The
interior is mostly modules made elsewhere.

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> >
> >
>
>

[Jack G]

This is the first time wings have been outsourced. Note also that
engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.

Jack


"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
> m...
> > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> > Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> > at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> > to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> > really good news for Boeing...?
>
> Let's see...is Japan now, or likely in the near future, going to be a
> competitor in the large transport arena? No. Is it rather common to sub
out
> fabrication of major components to companies located in other nations?
Yes.
> Does Japan offer a potential sizeable market for an aircraft like the 7E7?
> Yes. I'd therefore say that it surely does not sound like a BAD deal for
> Boeing.
>
> Wasn't there some serious discussion just a couple of years back between
> Airbus and the PRC to do a similar deal?
>
> Brooks
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...

> This is the first time wings have been outsourced.

No, it is not--Airbus has already inked a deal with the PRC to produce wings
for the A320. See, among other sites:

www.lehmanlaw.com/FAQ/faq/Aviation.htm

Note also that
> engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.

Now that part would be new, to the best of my knowledge. But not exactly
earthshattering--IIRC I read recently where other major US firms have
already been outsourcing engineering work to firms in India to take
advantage of the cheaper cost for professional services there.

Brooks

>
> Jack
>
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> > > Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> > > at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> > > to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> > > really good news for Boeing...?
> >
> > Let's see...is Japan now, or likely in the near future, going to be a
> > competitor in the large transport arena? No. Is it rather common to sub
> out
> > fabrication of major components to companies located in other nations?
> Yes.
> > Does Japan offer a potential sizeable market for an aircraft like the
7E7?
> > Yes. I'd therefore say that it surely does not sound like a BAD deal for
> > Boeing.
> >
> > Wasn't there some serious discussion just a couple of years back between
> > Airbus and the PRC to do a similar deal?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
>
>

[Larry]

>Is this really good news for Boeing...?

Boeing told all the states to "compete" to have the 7E7 built in their
backyard. I feel it will soon be exposed as a hoax. I'm thinking the Boeing
executives NEVER had any intention to build in any other location than
Everett- just work the government for whatever tax breaks they can squeeze
out of them.

Our tax dollars paid for a special session of the legislature to meet and
vote the biggest corporate tax incentive yet, which equates to $150,000 in
tax breaks per worker, per year. In other words Boeing gets free labor on
the 7E7 (per the local news as reported earlier tonight).

They even screwed the workers out of the unemployment benefits due them.

Yeah, I know we need the jobs here- But this just leaves a real sour taste .
.. .


(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)



"Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
m...
> The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> really good news for Boeing...?

[Jack G]

I should have said BOEING wings.

Jack


"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > This is the first time wings have been outsourced.
>
> No, it is not--Airbus has already inked a deal with the PRC to produce
wings
> for the A320. See, among other sites:
>
> www.lehmanlaw.com/FAQ/faq/Aviation.htm
>
> Note also that
> > engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.
>
> Now that part would be new, to the best of my knowledge. But not exactly
> earthshattering--IIRC I read recently where other major US firms have
> already been outsourcing engineering work to firms in India to take
> advantage of the cheaper cost for professional services there.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > "Scott Duncan" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > > > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> > > > Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> > > > at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> > > > to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> > > > really good news for Boeing...?
> > >
> > > Let's see...is Japan now, or likely in the near future, going to be a
> > > competitor in the large transport arena? No. Is it rather common to
sub
> > out
> > > fabrication of major components to companies located in other nations?
> > Yes.
> > > Does Japan offer a potential sizeable market for an aircraft like the
> 7E7?
> > > Yes. I'd therefore say that it surely does not sound like a BAD deal
for
> > > Boeing.
> > >
> > > Wasn't there some serious discussion just a couple of years back
between
> > > Airbus and the PRC to do a similar deal?
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dan Timmins]

(Scott Duncan) wrote in message >...
> The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> really good news for Boeing...?

Michael Crichton is rabidly anti-Japanese, as his novel "Rising Sun"
amply demonstrates. For further proof of his racism and use of racial
epithets, see his novel "Congo", where he describes Japanese and
Chinese businessmen as "slants" and "chinks".

[B2431]

>From: "Jack G"
>Date: 12/16/2003 11:28 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>This is the first time wings have been outsourced. Note also that
>engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.
>
>Jack
>
>
Hopfully not to tarver engineering.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

> Is this
>really good news for Boeing...?

It's the only news possible.

In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
response to this.

If Boeing set out to build a Bigger Thing faster or better than
Airbus, it would only succeed in crippling both companies, because it
needs the 747 income to survive.

If it crosses its fingers and hopes that Airbus comes a pratfall, it
risks becoming irrelevant and fading away. Who will buy the 747 if the
NBT (I never can remember those Airbus designations) is actually a
decent aircraft? It's bigger and a whole lot newer.

Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.
Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
*can't* afford to lose.

With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..
I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> allegedly uttered:

>In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
>the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
>response to this.

Niggle, 747 work started in 1963 and first flight was in 69. But yes,
they bet the farm on the 747 and scored big. Very ballsy move.

>Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.

Not sure why the Airbus products are duller - these are commercial
airliners we're talking about, never the most exciting objects around.

>Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
>can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
>*can't* afford to lose.
>
>With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
>was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..

Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

>I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
>else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.

I'll take what ever gets me there cheapest in a modicum of comfort
(unless one of the aircraft turns out to have a bad safety record,
something becoming increasingly unlikely in today's engineering
environment).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[tadaa]

> The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> really good news for Boeing...?

This is called globalization and it has been here for quite a while, so it
isn't anything that new. The companies are there to make money, not to safe
guard jobs.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Is this
> >really good news for Boeing...?
>
> It's the only news possible.
>
> In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
> the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
> response to this.

It is all a matter of what market predictions are made that guides Boeing's
plans, whale AI is about jobs.

> If Boeing set out to build a Bigger Thing faster or better than
> Airbus, it would only succeed in crippling both companies, because it
> needs the 747 income to survive.

There is no indication boeing is willing to "give away" airplanes and that
is pretty much what AI has done with the first 100 A-380s.

> If it crosses its fingers and hopes that Airbus comes a pratfall, it
> risks becoming irrelevant and fading away. Who will buy the 747 if the
> NBT (I never can remember those Airbus designations) is actually a
> decent aircraft? It's bigger and a whole lot newer.

Boeing has been betting on market fragmentation for a long time. Most 747s
are flying less than full, but need the range for the market.

> Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.
> Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
> can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
> *can't* afford to lose.

The 757 and 767 have gone to zero sales since 9-11 and unless the USAF buys
the tankers, the 767 line is doomed.

> With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
> was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..
> I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
> else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.

No Dan, the airplane is really an E, which is 2 times 7 in hex.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> > allegedly uttered:

> Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
> longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
> to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
> comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
> I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
A-380 should be better.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > This is the first time wings have been outsourced.
>
> No, it is not--Airbus has already inked a deal with the PRC to produce
wings
> for the A320. See, among other sites:
>
> www.lehmanlaw.com/FAQ/faq/Aviation.htm
>
> Note also that
> > engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.
>
> Now that part would be new, to the best of my knowledge. But not exactly
> earthshattering--IIRC I read recently where other major US firms have
> already been outsourcing engineering work to firms in India to take
> advantage of the cheaper cost for professional services there.

Speaking of Microsoft, India is the other reason Boeing has WA over a
barrel. :)

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>If it crosses its fingers and hopes that Airbus comes a pratfall, it
>risks becoming irrelevant and fading away. Who will buy the 747 if the
>NBT (I never can remember those Airbus designations) is actually a
>decent aircraft? It's bigger and a whole lot newer.

Possibly quite a lot of people -- the A380 is a fair bit bigger than
the 747, so both aircraft may have a niche.

>With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
>was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..

Why not?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:33:39 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
>> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
>> > allegedly uttered:
>
>> Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
>> longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
>> to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
>> comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
>> I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.
>
>The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
>A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
>A-380 should be better.

Total 777 orders 622, total A330/340 orders 812

777 ordered in 2002 32. A330/340 55 ordered

Well, it looks like the airlines disagree with you Mr Tarver with
respect to operations. What a shock.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:33:39 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >
> >"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
> ...
> >> On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> >> > allegedly uttered:
> >
> >> Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
> >> longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
> >> to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
> >> comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
> >> I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.
> >
> >The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
> >A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
> >A-380 should be better.
>
> Total 777 orders 622, total A330/340 orders 812

The 777 is a much newer airplane.

> 777 ordered in 2002 32. A330/340 55 ordered

An anomoly having to do with familiarization for the A-380 and a desire for
four engine airplanes; driven mostly by SA-7s.

> Well, it looks like the airlines disagree with you Mr Tarver with
> respect to operations. What a shock.

The A-340 has a critical wing designed to 17,000 feet, what I wrote is a
matter of physics for airliners headed west out of Asia. The Airlines
agree.

[Zamboni]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
> >
> >If it crosses its fingers and hopes that Airbus comes a pratfall, it
> >risks becoming irrelevant and fading away. Who will buy the 747 if the
> >NBT (I never can remember those Airbus designations) is actually a
> >decent aircraft? It's bigger and a whole lot newer.
>
> Possibly quite a lot of people -- the A380 is a fair bit bigger than
> the 747, so both aircraft may have a niche.
>
And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could rush-produce
a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time it
took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.
--
Zamboni

[Cub Driver]

>>With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
>>was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..
>
>Why not?

I used to fly 747s once a winter when I skied in Europe, and on
several other transAtlantic and transPacific trips (the worse was New
York to Seoul in one jump and just two meals). Getting off the plane
is almost as bad as getting off a passenger liner in the 1950s.

Even in the 1970s I preferred the Lockheed 1011 as a more humane
carcass-carrier. I was tickled when 767s (I do have this right, don't
I? the 767 is the twin-aisle?) appeared on transAtlantic runs. That's
a perfect-sized airplane. You don't get the claustrophobia you get in
a single-aisle plane; you can go to the toilet in one aisle while the
food or drinks cart is blocking the other, and you can walk up one
aisle and down the other to get a bit of exercise. And when it's time
to get off and find your bags, you can be in the taxi by the time the
747 has disgorged its cargo.

They're talking up to 800 people for the Airbus 380! Good grief.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could rush-produce
>a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time it
>took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.

Not really. The stretch 747 was to have cost billions. But the real
issue is that there is no market for two super-sized aircraft. The 380
won't kill the 747, though it will certainly make it much less
profitable for Boeing. But a Super 747 and a 380 would kill both
companies.

The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
France afforded the Concorde.

Boeing is in a very tough position. Because Airbus came along later,
its planes are more modern. Boeing can only play catchup with projects
like the 7E7/787, and at the end of the day it will have the more
modern fleet. But as long as the 737 is the airlines' cash cow, it
still won't have the cockpit similarity across its entire fleet that
Airbus has.

This was one case where being first mover proved in the long run to be
a bit of a disadvantage.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could
rush-produce
> >a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time
it
> >took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.
>
> Not really. The stretch 747 was to have cost billions. But the real
> issue is that there is no market for two super-sized aircraft.

There is no way to just stretch the 747, as the wing is at about the max
size for cable driven controls.

[Grantland]

"Oelewapper" > wrote:
>
>"Hobo" > wrote:

>> "Oelewapper" > wrote:
>>
>> > The 7E7 is a child born dead.
>>
>> Everytime I open a newspaper I see another story about the Euro going
>> up. You must be reading different newspapers.
>
>Used to work in structured finance, Airbus sales are hedged up to a very
>high level, the remaining difference: cheaper imports on the supply side,
>higher revenues for Euro-Airlines, who also benefit from lower oil prices.
>Plus also cheaper finance for dev. projects like A380, A400M and the like.
>Geo-Fin. Analysis: the dollar is so weak partly due to overspending USgovt,
>but also due to current account deficit - related to global trade and
>economy = good economy and development in markets like china, india,
>brazil - where airbus recently had major inroads and where the real growth
>is expected, real payoff for airbus still to come.
>
>The EUR is hedged, natural hedge postive eather way. It's not really an
>issue as far as AI bottom line is concerned.
>
Lovely, lovely news. Just lovely. Thankyou.

Grantland

[Cub Driver]

>Used to work in structured finance, Airbus sales are hedged up to a very
>high level, the remaining difference: cheaper imports on the supply side,
>higher revenues for Euro-Airlines, who also benefit from lower oil prices.
>Plus also cheaper finance for dev. projects like A380, A400M and the like.
>Geo-Fin. Analysis: the dollar is so weak partly due to overspending USgovt,
>but also due to current account deficit - related to global trade and
>economy = good economy and development in markets like china, india,
>brazil - where airbus recently had major inroads and where the real growth
>is expected, real payoff for airbus still to come.

I can see why you no longer work in structured finance, whatever that
might be.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> allegedly uttered:

>The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
>Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
>is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
>stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
>by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
>France afforded the Concorde.

To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
paid back.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
> >Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
> >is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
> >stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
> >by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
> >France afforded the Concorde.
>
> To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
> most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
> with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
> breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
> paid back.

California offered $200,000,000 in tax breaks for boeing to build the 7E7
here and Washington offered $400,000,000; but I think Everett workers wish
the State would fix the road.

[Jack G]

Actually, repayment of Airbus loans does not begin until the airplane starts
to make a profit - thus development of a new airplane is a very low risk
proposition.

Jack


"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
> >Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
> >is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
> >stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
> >by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
> >France afforded the Concorde.
>
> To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
> most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
> with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
> breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
> paid back.
>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - Drink Faster

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> California offered $200,000,000 in tax breaks for boeing to build the 7E7
> here and Washington offered $400,000,000; but I think Everett workers wish
> the State would fix the road.
>
They should have thought of that before voting the automobile excise tax
away and handicapping the ability for the State to get revenues.

Glenn D.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > California offered $200,000,000 in tax breaks for boeing to build the
7E7
> > here and Washington offered $400,000,000; but I think Everett workers
wish
> > the State would fix the road.

> They should have thought of that before voting the automobile excise tax
> away and handicapping the ability for the State to get revenues.

The State of Washington took Boeing's money to fix the road years ago. It
is unfortunate that the company had to go so far as to leave, over
tranpsortation issues.

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message ...
> In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
> the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
> response to this.

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

> If Boeing set out to build a Bigger Thing faster or better than
> Airbus, it would only succeed in crippling both companies, because it
> needs the 747 income to survive.

No.

Boeing 747 revenue is only 10% of the comercial aircraft revenue, which
is only 50% of Boeing revenue. Almost no one is ordering anything
bigger than a 737 from Boeing. There are only 52 747's on order
total, as opposed to 195 777s and 798 737's.

Only 17 747's were ordered this year, and only 27 were delivered.

Basically, the 747 is fading gracefully. It's been around a long time
though.

For 2002, the only planes who's order books grew were the
a320
a380
737-800
Embraer 170

[Tarver Engineering]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Basically, the 747 is fading gracefully. It's been around a long time
> though.
>
> For 2002, the only planes who's order books grew were the
> a320
> a380
> 737-800
> Embraer 170

Which vaildates Boeing's expectation of increasing market fragmentation.

[Scott Duncan]

"tadaa" > wrote in message >...
> > The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
> > Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
> > Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
> > at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
> > to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
> > really good news for Boeing...?
>
> This is called globalization and it has been here for quite a while, so it
> isn't anything that new. The companies are there to make money, not to safe
> guard jobs.

Globalization, or just plain giving away the store?

[Paul F Austin]

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote
>
> "Cub Driver" wrote
> > In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
> > the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
> > response to this.
>
There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.

> Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
> numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
risking your_own_money.

[Cub Driver]

That's interesting analysis. (I don't know anything about Airbus's
financial arrangements, other than to accept the Wall Street Journal's
statement that they are indeed subsidized by European governments.)

If correct, you are validating Boeing's decision to take the contest
elsewhere.

Boeing's situation is an interesting refutation of the current belief
that being the first mover is the most important thing. Airbus came
along and essentially duplicated Boeing's line, with the end result
that everything Airbus has is newer.

I suspect that Boeing will come out all right. In the first place,
nobody wants a situation in which there is only one airliner
manufacturer in the world (even if that mfgr is Boeing!). In the
second place, it has since the 1930s built wonderful airplanes. I feel
just a bit more secure flying a Boeing jet than I do the Airbus
variants (and that's what they are--variants).

>
>"Charles Talleyrand" wrote
>>
>> "Cub Driver" wrote
>> > In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
>> > the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
>> > response to this.
>>
>There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
>below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.
>
>> Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
>> numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)
>
>And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
>payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
>risking your_own_money.
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul F Austin]

> >
> >"Charles Talleyrand" wrote
> >>
> >> "Cub Driver" wrote
> >> > In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
> >> > the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
> >> > response to this.
> >>
> >There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
> >below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.
> >
> >> Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
> >> numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)
> >
> >And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
> >payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
> >risking your_own_money.

"Cub Driver" wrote
> That's interesting analysis. (I don't know anything about Airbus's
> financial arrangements, other than to accept the Wall Street Journal's
> statement that they are indeed subsidized by European governments.)
>
> If correct, you are validating Boeing's decision to take the contest
> elsewhere.
>
> Boeing's situation is an interesting refutation of the current belief
> that being the first mover is the most important thing. Airbus came
> along and essentially duplicated Boeing's line, with the end result
> that everything Airbus has is newer.
>
> I suspect that Boeing will come out all right. In the first place,
> nobody wants a situation in which there is only one airliner
> manufacturer in the world (even if that mfgr is Boeing!). In the
> second place, it has since the 1930s built wonderful airplanes. I feel
> just a bit more secure flying a Boeing jet than I do the Airbus
> variants (and that's what they are--variants).
>
_All_the Airbus models had their non-recurring engineering costs heavily and
directly subsidized by European tax payers. That's tough for Boeing to
compete with. In an interview (about 1990), Jean Pearson the (then) managing
director of AirbusIndustrie said that Boeing financed the development of the
B757 and B767 out of "the unconsciencable profits from the B747".

Europeans are of the opinion that because Boeing was paid for military
airframe work on things like the KC-135, B-52 and the proposal concepts for
the Boeing version of the C-5 that the designs of Boeing transports were
"subsidized" by the USG. In order to get a European airframer into the
transport business, the various host governments have paid AirbusIndustrie
hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
below-market loans.

[fudog50]

Hey Olewapper,
The Boeing vs. AI thing is so huge, and there a multitude of reasons
why one is better than the other in different categories, it ends up
being a personal preference and opinion why one "like"s one airline
over the other. To say that Airbus has done a better job of building
jets than Boeing is an unvalidated opinion, what are your reasons?
(you said "In the end, the AI planes simply are better than the old
Boeing line... Airbus has done the same job as Boeing indeed, only
better"). My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product. I've spoke
to many pilots, most of them feel the same way, but I've never
actually seen any statitsics,,,,,anybody??? I have many more
opinionated reasons from a manufacturing and maintenance perspective
on why Boeing is a better made product, but they are only opinions
based on experience, not statistics.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:49:49 +0100, "Oelewapper" >
wrote:

>
>"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> > Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
>> > numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)
>
>> And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
>> payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
>> risking your_own_money.
>
>Hi there,
>
>It's only normal that the Europeans want to build their own planes, they
>don't really care if some of their tax money is being spent on developping
>new airplanes or on retaining important high-tech, defense-related,
>strategic airplane manufacturing capability on European soil. Why should
>they buy American planes, if they can build them themselves, and even make a
>lot of money selling them abroad. In the end, the AI planes simply are
>better than the old Boeing line... Airbus has done the same job as Boeing
>indeed, only better.
>
>And yes, many of Boeing's R&D expenses were, and are, covered by the DOD.
>That's a fact and a fact is a fact.
>
>Oelewapper manufacturer management survey:
>
>A. AIRBUS MANAGEMENT:
>---------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>B. BOEING MANAGEMENT:
>---------------------------
>
>
>
>

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:31:29 GMT, fudog50
> allegedly uttered:

> My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
>product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.

I'm curious, wouldn't it be the same thing anyway - on all modern
airliners you're merely convincing the computer to do what you want -
that's why they are so safe these days?
I'd much rather fly a modern airliner with all the glass cockpits and
fly by light possible, Boeing or Airbus. I personally prefer Airbus on
comfort grounds, but I've never flown a 777 so maybe Boeing's latest
is as good or better.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Cub Driver]

>In order to get a European airframer into the
>transport business, the various host governments have paid AirbusIndustrie
>hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
>below-market loans.

If true, this is great stuff for the American and Asian traveler. You
can't do better than have a foreign government subsidize your travel!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Airbus has done the same job as Boeing indeed, only
>better").

Well, it would have been more accurate if he had written: Airbus has
done the same job as Boeing, only newer. That's certainly true. From a
pilot's point of view (not that many people care about that) the
Airbus line has a great advantage in that all glass cockpits are
alike, or can be made so, whereas analog instruments are unique to the
era in which they were built.

But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
one.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul F Austin]

"Cub Driver" wrote
>
> >In order to get a European airframer into the
> >transport business, the various host governments have paid
AirbusIndustrie
> >hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
> >below-market loans.
>
> If true, this is great stuff for the American and Asian traveler. You
> can't do better than have a foreign government subsidize your travel!

That's exactly right: please don't throw me in that briar patch. Of course
that's rough on Mr Boeing. While commercial transports are big business,
it's also true that airlining isn't a business at all: after seventy years
of track record, the industry as a whole hovers around the
zero-accumulated-profit line.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Oelewapper" > wrote in message
. be...
>
> "fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hey Olewapper,
> > To say that Airbus has done a better job of building
> > jets than Boeing is an unvalidated opinion, what are your reasons?
>
> My reasons are plenty: first of all, there is the problem with the
Boeing-MD
> integration, that hasn't worked too well, certainly not with the product
> line, with the development of new planes and with residual values of some
of
> the existing planes.
> Then there is the argument about the market: AI has better performance,
> better operations, reliability, price... and its very interoperable as far
> as crews and techicians are concerned.
> Of course there is the argument about the incorporated technologies, I
think
> eversince Airbus launched it 2crew and FBW planes, they have been at the
> forefront as far as building better planes is concerned. Even though
there
> clearly was some hesitation at first, about FBW in particular - AI quickly
> solved those problems - rumour has it they simply rewrote the code - and
> that's exactly the difference between A and B: A is far more reactive,
> proactive and flexible. Do you honestly feel safe when boarding a 767 ?
> Better check if the thrust reversers are working properly !!!
> Also the management: towards the mid-90's B found itself in a situation
> where it had laid off most of its valuable engineers, technicians and
> mechanics, creating a problem as far as reacting to changing market
> conditions was concerned, failing to manufacture and to deliver many
planes
> on-time for a couple of quarters.

Experianced contractor employees, many of which were Boeing retirees filled
that void nicely and implemented a drafting change through which their own
jobs were eliminated. What caused the slip in deliveries was a change to a
more efficient system of manufacuring.

> Compare it to Ferrari vs Toyota
> manufacturing systems.

You make a good comparison and many automotive engineers and draftsmen were
used to update the manufacturing system at Boeing.

> Part of the development, corporate strength and
> competitiveness of Toyota is how it actually builds and develops its cars.
> Likewise in the airliner industry: in the mid-90's Boeing management screw
> up big time, and it is still suffering from what happened back then, about
> 10 years ago now.

BCAG is suffering from a loss of export tax subsidies ($4 billion disputed
by EU) and the AI member countries subsidising their airplanes. I don't
really see any reason why the US government would not assist Boeing in some
manner.

The tanker deal looked to be a real help, but this Boeing shooting
themselves in the foot on the military side has to stop.

> Also planning dept.: what happened to 747stretch, sonic cruiser... ??
Sonic
> cruiser was a strategic error that seriously hurt B's reputation.
Everybody
> knows that there are some basic laws of physics, and unless you come up
with
> some revolutionary research, there's just no way that a development like
the
> sonic cruiser would work... economically... As far as the industry is
> concerned now: more and more it appears that Boeing is all hat, and no
> cattle.

The laws reguarding regulatory certification changed with the fall of the
wall. (Law of the Wall)

> The 7E7 will only canibalise B's already rapidly decreasing market
> share, but it will fail to compete against Airbus. It's simply too little,
> too late: even when it's a technically sound plane, it's gonna be a hard
> sell in the market (compare MD11).

The 7E7 is aimed at the A-330 and looks to have a good chance of delivering
fuel savings in a oil short economy. A phenonemon the A-300 took advantage
of through the use of high bypass engines thirty years ago.

> The only good job B has done over the last 20 years has been its relaunch
of
> the 737; even the 777 hasn't been the ultimate success B was hoping for.
AI
> has a viable alternative with its A32 line.

All except the A-32 line are in many ways inferior airplanes to the Boeing
line. (except Douglas) I expect Boeing will address passenger comfort in
the 7E7 and I am the first to admit that the 757 and 767 suck in that
matter.

> The A scenario (budget airlines
> short distance PTP and big birds HTH) seems to be winning it from the
> overall PTP scenario put forward by B. And as the low-cost business model
> is moving up into the longer ranges (within the logistical limits) the
> Airbus business scenario is clearly getting the overhand.

loaning customers money to buy your product has always been a good way to
expand market share and AI has certainly exploited that finance/marketing
track. That financing and Beoing's refusal to update the 37 years ago made
a place for the A32 and AI really put out a nice airplane.

> Plenty, plenty, plenty... How else would you explain that Boeing lost its
> dominance over the market, and the Europeans could create a new
> manufacturing giant with a competitive product line almost from scrap?

I would point to the many billions of dollars in subsidies paid to AI in low
interest loans and capitalization, from the European taxpayer.

> Subsidies??? Gimme a break... During the 70s and 80s B was generating so
> many profits they hardly knew what do to with the money... No, I think
it's
> about time Boeing's management got its act toghether - instead of relying
on
> the DOD and all kinds of corruption to keep their lousy business going.

Thus, the 7E7.

> > My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
> > product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.
>
> Real pilots would rather not be flying Airbus or Boeing...

Yes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:31:29 GMT, fudog50
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> > My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
> >product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.
>
> I'm curious, wouldn't it be the same thing anyway - on all modern
> airliners you're merely convincing the computer to do what you want -
> that's why they are so safe these days?

Fused sensors provide automatic multi-sensor cross checks that assist the
operator in monitoring system integrity.

> I'd much rather fly a modern airliner with all the glass cockpits and
> fly by light possible, Boeing or Airbus. I personally prefer Airbus on
> comfort grounds, but I've never flown a 777 so maybe Boeing's latest
> is as good or better.

The aspect ratio of the 777 cabin is very pleasing.

[tadaa]

> But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
> likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
> than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
> one.

Has there been info about why did the tail come off that Airbus taking off
in NY?
The one that happened in earlier (in Italy?) was because they used
counterfit parts to save costs (old parts made to look new with counterfit
papers).

[Paul F Austin]

"Tarver Engineering" wrote .

>
> BCAG is suffering from a loss of export tax subsidies ($4 billion disputed
> by EU) and the AI member countries subsidising their airplanes. I don't
> really see any reason why the US government would not assist Boeing in
some
> manner.
>
> The tanker deal looked to be a real help, but this Boeing shooting
> themselves in the foot on the military side has to stop.

The comprehensive way Boeing has screwed its many businesses is fairly
amazing.

Launcher business? The pricing information brought over from LockMart cost a
billion in booked orders cancelled.

Satellites? The underwriters have been so burned by the BSS-701 failures
that one underwriter said that until the underlying quality problems are
fixed that Boeing satellites were uninsureable.

NMD? More competitor pricing information (this time from Raytheon) cause
Boeing to hand the NMD kill vehicle contract to Raytheon rather than have
ex-Rockwell BSS do it.

And now the suggestion that Darlene Druyun brought over competitive pricing
information from DoD (which I don't believe for a second). Druyun oversaw
the procurement of_very_sensitive, large dollar value procurements that make
the tanker contract look like small beer.

It's little wonder that Condit is history.

[Paul F Austin]

"Oelewapper" wrote
>
> "tadaa" wrote in
> > > But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
> > > likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
> > > than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
> > > one.
> >
> > Has there been info about why did the tail come off that Airbus taking
off
> > in NY?
> > The one that happened in earlier (in Italy?) was because they used
> > counterfit parts to save costs (old parts made to look new with
counterfit
> > papers).
>
> Utter bull**** !! From here it's only one step to say that the european
> countries are handing out billions of euros to AI, because otherwise they
> would have to staple the tail on the plane with a Bostich B8 staple
> machine... which would be bad for the economy because Bostich is an
American
> brand... Gimme a break.
>
> Last that I heard is that Airbus and AA are facing each other in court,
and
> it doesn't look too good for AA and its instructors. Apparently American
> pilots dunno how and when to use the rudder: the guy kept pumping the
> goddamn thing until his tail blew off !!! I mean, eversince 9/11 no
single
> pilot had gone to such great lengths to make sure that his plane would
fall
> to pieces.
>
> Talking about the thrust reversers and the prematurely appearing cracks on
> the B767 though... any news if Boeing fixed that problem already, or is
that
> maybe the reason why nobody wants to buy these planes anymore ???

Unwind your undergarments.

As I read the reports, there were no structural deficiencies in the A300
design or in the tail that came off. Airbus, like all airframers analysed
their aircraft to FAA standards that did not include the stresses from
opposite rudder with a significant yaw.

Apparently transport pilots were being trained (on many different
transports) to apply large rudder inputs which (absent the analysis
mentioned above) could overstress the fin, which is what took the tail off
the A300. Fixing it will require a combination of training and modification
of aircraft (mainly in control laws and software).