What are Boeing's plans?

Jarg wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51,
says...

Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
that Boeing made the right decision.


Why should we hope that??


Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Graham


Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?

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

Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Jarg wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51,
says...

Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
hope
that Boeing made the right decision.


Why should we hope that??


Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Graham


Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?

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

Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?


Graham


Is Ireland not part of Europe?

Jarg

Jarg wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Jarg wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51,
says...

Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
hope
that Boeing made the right decision.


Why should we hope that??


Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Graham


Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?

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

Why are you so fixated about the Irish specifically ?


Graham


Is Ireland not part of Europe?

Jarg

Sure - and so is Lichtenstein.

Your point is ?

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

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

Graahm

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Jarg wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51,
says...

Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double
decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's
hope
that Boeing made the right decision.


Why should we hope that??


Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Graham


Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish?

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

Am pretty sure that Shorts don't have any Airbus contracts - think they
worked pretty much exclusively on Bombardier and Boeing.

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

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51,
says...

They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time
that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The
747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo
loading.

Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
that Boeing made the right decision.



Why should we hope that??

G Faris

Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

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

Brooks



Graham

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the trees?

Nope.


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

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


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

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


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

But not making.


Graham

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

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.

Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the
trees?

Nope.


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

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

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



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

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

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

They are the launch engine provider after all.


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

But not making.

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

Brooks



Graham

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

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

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message
...

What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over
the rest of the line?

I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.

7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever)

No ?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Brooks


Graham

"Kevin Brooks" 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?