What are Boeing's plans?

Here is an interesting question: the USAF KC-767 deal was supposed to keep
the 767 line open, but this deal is dormant. If the USAF doesn't act soon,
they won't be able to buy 767s as the line closes real soon. With this
in mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is closed?

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
Here is an interesting question: the USAF KC-767 deal was supposed to keep
the 767 line open, but this deal is dormant. If the USAF doesn't act
soon,
they won't be able to buy 767s as the line closes real soon. With this in
mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is closed?

From what I have read, the E-10 concept is not completely locked into the
767 platform--the first operational test and eval aircraft will be a 767
platform, but no firm decision regarding later procurement has been made. If
Boeing wants to continue to pursue the 767 tanker option, it has the ability
to temporarily kill the line and restart it later, as long as they keep the
tooling and jigs--there has also already been mention made of possible 7E7
use in the E-10 role, and more remotely as a future tanker platform.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
Here is an interesting question: the USAF KC-767 deal was supposed to
keep
the 767 line open, but this deal is dormant. If the USAF doesn't act
soon,
they won't be able to buy 767s as the line closes real soon. With this
in
mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is
closed?

From what I have read, the E-10 concept is not completely locked into the
767 platform--the first operational test and eval aircraft will be a 767
platform, but no firm decision regarding later procurement has been made.
If
Boeing wants to continue to pursue the 767 tanker option, it has the
ability
to temporarily kill the line and restart it later, as long as they keep
the
tooling and jigs--there has also already been mention made of possible 7E7
use in the E-10 role, and more remotely as a future tanker platform.

There are still 24 767s in the announced backlog which keeps the line open
until at least the end of 2006 though I would guess some parts of the supply
chain would shutdown sooner. I have never heard of any plans to mothball any
line at Boeing and don't really see how it could be done.

And of course the last 757 is in final assembly now.


Brooks

William Wright wrote:

There are still 24 767s in the announced backlog which keeps the line open
until at least the end of 2006 though I would guess some parts of the supply
chain would shutdown sooner. I have never heard of any plans to mothball any
line at Boeing and don't really see how it could be done.

And of course the last 757 is in final assembly now.

Is this an example of the 'healthy order book' that another poster in this
thread referred to ?


Graham

I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one
and Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The
DoD didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing
either refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end
result being that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B
they had bought and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the
E-8B to Omega for a pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid
Northrop Grumman a fortune to rebuild them so they could be used as
E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are
getting very difficult to maintain, so they will have to reengine them.
They could have had new 707 airframes, with new CFM56 engines (ala'
the E-8B), if they had just done things right.

I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as
the E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe
without spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move
from the 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer
range 7E7 won't be available in time. The only choice will be used
767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
were built from.

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...

I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one and
Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The DoD
didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing either
refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end result being
that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B they had bought
and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the E-8B to Omega for a
pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid Northrop Grumman a fortune
to rebuild them so they could be used as E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining
that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are getting very difficult to maintain, so
they will have to reengine them. They could have had new 707 airframes,
with new CFM56 engines (ala' the E-8B), if they had just done things
right.

The focus for the E-10 as of now is getting the systems integrated; the
airframe is apparently of secondary concern, from what I read earlier. E-10
is not showing up anytime real soon, remember.


I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as the
E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe without
spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move from the
767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer range 7E7
won't be available in time.

Yeah, it would be available. NG is not required ot have the E-10
demonstration radar completed until around 2010, according to the AFA (
www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704world.asp ); 7E7 first flies in 2007.
Globalsecurity.com says that the delivery to the USAF is currently scheduled
for 2012, which might slip by two years.

The only choice will be used
767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
were built from.

Maybe all of this is why the USAF has only committed to the 767 for the
single test and eval airframe as of yet.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51...


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.

From what I have read, Boeing is banking on the 7E7 being a more valuable
commodity than "supersized" air transports, and if you look at the extreme
number of current hub-feeder and smaller hub-to-hub aircraft out there that
are going to need replacement in the not-too-distant future, they may well
have made the better choice. Lots of DC-9's, older 737's, A319's, A320's,
etc., are going to be coming due for replacement in the next few years, and
with fuel economy being a growing concern in terms of meeting the bottom
line requirements, the 7E7 family will be well positioned to take a goodly
share of that market.

The 7E7 is a rather larger capacity a/c than those you mention. Hardly a
likely
replacement on a like for like basis.

Airbus may find itself in the unenviable position of
having a lock on the market for supers, but being a step behind in terms of
the larger share of the market that wants to recapitalize its smaller
airframe fleets.

Airbus doesn't seem to be short of actual orders.

http://www.airbus.com/media/orders_n_deliveries.asp A320 family is
doing esp
well.

Last I heard, Boeing had no actual orders for 7E7.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51...


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.

From what I have read, Boeing is banking on the 7E7 being a more valuable
commodity than "supersized" air transports, and if you look at the
extreme
number of current hub-feeder and smaller hub-to-hub aircraft out there
that
are going to need replacement in the not-too-distant future, they may
well
have made the better choice. Lots of DC-9's, older 737's, A319's, A320's,
etc., are going to be coming due for replacement in the next few years,
and
with fuel economy being a growing concern in terms of meeting the bottom
line requirements, the 7E7 family will be well positioned to take a
goodly
share of that market.

The 7E7 is a rather larger capacity a/c than those you mention. Hardly a
likely
replacement on a like for like basis.

You are generally right (bang on head). I went back and reread the article
in question and the market they are looking at for replacement airframes is
the L-1011, DC-10, 767, and A300/310/330. But the 7E7-3 model would
presumably be of interest for replacement of some smaller capacity aircraft
like the 737, with roughly the same range as the smaller aircraft while
offering about one hundred more seats.


Airbus may find itself in the unenviable position of
having a lock on the market for supers, but being a step behind in terms
of
the larger share of the market that wants to recapitalize its smaller
airframe fleets.

Airbus doesn't seem to be short of actual orders.

Neither is Boeing (see below)...


http://www.airbus.com/media/orders_n_deliveries.asp A320 family is
doing esp
well.

Last I heard, Boeing had no actual orders for 7E7.

You heard wrong. All Nipon is the launch customer (with a fifty aircraft
order, Boeing's largest single launch order ever), Air New Zealand followed
(two aircraft). Two European airlines have also placed orders (ten total).
Sixty-two firm orders total. Over just around a one year period, before
metal was cut--that ain't bad.

Brooks



Graham

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.

Air France apparently never really tried to make money out of it.


Graham

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