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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Well, you
shouldn't let your personal experiences color you ideas about the US economy. For example, it ooks like you missed the insourcing of high paying that is also occurring. Not to mention the strong growth of the Insourcing of high paying lobs? Surely you must be joking. If good paying jobs are ever created in US,they are usually for the imported talent not for Americans. FYI in US: 38 % of Medical doctors are foreign (mostly Indian),also, 38 % percent of IBM employees , 36 % of NASA employees, 34 % of Microsoft employees, 17 % of Intel employees, 14 % of Xerox employees are foreign . This list goes on and on,expect these percentages to rise after elections as whoever gets elected will increase H1B visas available to the foreigners hired by US companies. Thanks to Anglo minority that rule America,Americans have only two less than perfect choices: 1)Either high paying jobs will go to other countries,or 2)Foreigners will come and take high paying jobs away. In Anglo minority dominated US the image (facade) is everything. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message ... Well, you shouldn't let your personal experiences color you ideas about the US economy. For example, it ooks like you missed the insourcing of high paying that is also occurring. Not to mention the strong growth of the Insourcing of high paying lobs? Surely you must be joking. Nope, not a joke: http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/ If good paying jobs are ever created in US,they are usually for the imported talent not for Americans. FYI in US: 38 % of Medical doctors are foreign (mostly Indian),also, 38 % percent of IBM employees , 36 % of NASA employees, 34 % of Microsoft employees, 17 % of Intel employees, 14 % of Xerox employees are foreign . You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries? This list goes on and on,expect these percentages to rise after elections as whoever gets elected will increase H1B visas available to the foreigners hired by US companies. Thanks to Anglo minority that rule America,Americans have only two less than perfect choices: 1)Either high paying jobs will go to other countries,or 2)Foreigners will come and take high paying jobs away. In Anglo minority dominated US the image (facade) is everything. My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist? Jarg |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries
By definition foreign nationals who came here on dual intent temporary visas. My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist? No,thats only a snapshot of current job market here. BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any plane? |
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 |
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 9 | June 6th 04 02:45 PM |
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... | Chris | Home Built | 1 | February 27th 04 09:23 PM |
Here's a silly question regarding plans | David Hill | Home Built | 21 | October 8th 03 04:17 AM |