If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jarg wrote:
"G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51, says... They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The 747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading. Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker. Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope that Boeing made the right decision. Why should we hope that?? G Faris Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into more jobs and more money for Americans! *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason. Graham |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What are Boeing's plans?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
... Jarg wrote: "G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$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. Graham Really? So Airbus' success is a good thing for the Irish? Jarg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... Jarg wrote: "G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51, says... They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The 747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading. Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker. Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope that Boeing made the right decision. Why should we hope that?? G Faris Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into more jobs and more money for Americans! *We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason. Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the trees? The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a couple of major systems for it. Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind continuing to sell engines for it. Some ten nations have companies contributing to the 7E7 work right now. Brooks Graham |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jarg wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... Jarg wrote: "G Farris" wrote in message ... In article EdD2d.65358$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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
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. Agreed, but that wasn't their problem. It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build the plane. Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'. As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and performance airframe. Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long. Uhuh. 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. It worked ! 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. Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though? Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 27th 05 07:50 PM |
Unused plans question | Doc Font | Home Built | 0 | December 8th 04 09:16 PM |
What are Boeing's plans? | David Lednicer | General Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 09:19 PM |
What are Boeing's plans? | David Lednicer | Military Aviation | 62 | September 27th 04 12:23 AM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |